Hi,
Just wondering if anyone had any advice on the 'best' way to profile the
sage source code.
There's a couple of Game Theory functions that I know are slow and would
like to improve.
Also, I'm currently in the middle of writing two different versions of the
same method, what would be the
Dear Sage developers,
Just a quick update: I have updated the announcement for the position
opening in Paris Sud, and it is now official:
http://opendreamkit.org/2015/05/22/developer-position-paris-sud/
We plan to run interviews in early July, so there is a soft
application
On 16 June 2015 at 16:12, Thierry sage-googlesu...@lma.metelu.net wrote:
Hi,
if your machine is named lehner (which is likely since both have user
indeed it is: lehner.warwick.ac.uk at IP 137.205.56.253
jec), then you have some failing doctests while running the patchbot:
Hi there,
I wasn't able to find the following functionality: Let W =
PermutationGroup(gens) be a permutation group and let w in W. Find a
*shortest* expression as a group of w as a word in gens and their
inverses.
w.word_problem() finds a word, but this has not necessarily the
shortest possible
John,
Occam's Razor would suggest that those timeouts are because the machine
is too much loaded. If you are using many parallel threads (MAKE=make
-jN for a high value of N) or somebody is running other things on that
machine, that might explain the timeouts.
Can you send the log file on
Hi,
if your machine is named lehner (which is likely since both have user
jec), then you have some failing doctests while running the patchbot:
http://patchbot.sagemath.org/log/0/Ubuntu/14.04/x86_64/3.13.0-48-generic/lehner/2015-06-15%2023:18:15%20+0100
I have the same issue of having no failing
On 16 June 2015 at 17:27, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
John,
Occam's Razor would suggest that those timeouts are because the machine is
too much loaded. If you are using many parallel threads (MAKE=make -jN for
a high value of N) or somebody is running other things on that
Hm, another thing I don't understand: if a class implementing morphisms
in
a category A inherits from another class implementing morphisms in a
category B, will the categories A and B be related?
Generally, attributes of morphisms will carry a certain semantics that
is related
Tiebreaker needed:
We have a whole bunch of ways in which a matrix can be constructed. Some of
the possible signatures we support according to the documentation:
A)
matrix(n,m, callable f)
which constructs the n x m matrix with entries f(i,j), where i,j run throw
the row and column indices.
On 2015-06-16 20:26, John Cremona wrote:
http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/staff/J.E.Cremona/ptestlong.log.bz2
There is nothing suspicious in that file, I don't know what the cause is...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To
This is even a more interesting example:
sage: f(x,y) = x+y
sage: Matrix(2, 2, f) # Matrix over CallableSymbolicExpressionRing
[(x, y) |-- x + y (x, y) |-- 0]
[(x, y) |-- 0 (x, y) |-- x + y]
Here is a proposal (assuming callable(f) is true):
if not isinstance(f, RingElement):
PS:
On 2015-06-16, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
I suppose the SageMath developers should first agree on a terminology
here. What about this:
- Morphism should in future denote a morphism (structure preserving)
in an appropriate category.
- Map should in future denote a
Hi Simon!
I suppose the SageMath developers should first agree on a terminology
here. What about this:
- Morphism should in future denote a morphism (structure preserving)
in an appropriate category.
- Map should in future denote a morphism in the category of Sets().
I.e., if P1
On 14 June 2015 at 22:22, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2015 at 20:33, Frédéric Chapoton fchapot...@gmail.com wrote:
This should work.. Is there anything in the required directory ?
Are you sure you are calling the right sage ? not another one without the
patchbot
Hi Martin,
On 2015-06-16, 'Martin R' via sage-devel sage-devel@googlegroups.com wrote:
I suppose the SageMath developers should first agree on a terminology
here. What about this:
- Morphism should in future denote a morphism (structure preserving)
in an appropriate category.
- Map
15 matches
Mail list logo
