Re: [sage-devel] Bug in module_morphism

On 23/08/16 18:08, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: PS - We also should make matrices know they are morphisms and things like Hom(V, V) return the matrix space. At least we should be able to implement this without affecting the speed of matrix creation and manipulation by putting things in the matrix

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in module_morphism

However, there is a more general issue that the module morphism is not currently designed to work with Sage's FreeModule code. sage: V = ZZ^3 sage: A = matrix.random(ZZ, 3) sage: phi = V.module_morphism(codomain=V, matrix=A)

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

kcrisman wrote: > > Make R optional? (Nothing in Sage depends on it, except for the > interface to it, including Rpy2.) > > Gosh, R has been standard for*ever*, practically, Hört sich nach Schwäbischem Dreiklang an. > and is often heavily > advertised as a good reason to use Sage.

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > I agree that losing a standard package for failing to build it on one > particular target would be bad. > > From Trac#20523 : > > Replying to [comment:11 embray]: > On Cygwin I needed to `apt-cyg install liblzma-devel` (if

[sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

Right. Perhaps I was just thinking of "cosmetics". Lots of parents in Sage should be finite enumerated sets. If their category is a join of some category X and the category of finite enumerated sets, then it is printed as Join of some category X and the category of finite enumerated sets. I

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in module_morphism

An other one (that is responsible for the bug) sage: V = VectorSpace(QQ, 12) sage: Modules(Fields()) Category of vector spaces over fields sage: V in Modules(Fields()) False Maybe this is also wrong sage: Modules(QQ).is_subcategory(Modules(Fields())) False On 23/08/16 14:32, Vincent

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in module_morphism

Indeed sage: VectorSpace(QQ,12) in Modules(QQ) True sage: VectorSpace(QQ,12) in Modules(QQ).FiniteDimensional() False On 23/08/16 13:29, VictorMiller wrote: I just tried the following code on sagemath cloud. Note the last line in the error message -- clearly not correct! Victor sage> V =

[sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

Hi Kwankyu, On 2016-08-23, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > For (1): Joining categories works. However, this seems not a standard nor > an elegant way... Why not? It is absolutely standard in mathematics to consider objects A that belong to the category of rings and belong at the same

[sage-devel] Bug in module_morphism

I just tried the following code on sagemath cloud. Note the last line in the error message -- clearly not correct! Victor sage> V = VectorSpace(QQ,12) sage> C = ModulesWithBasis(V.base_ring()) sage> C0 = C.FiniteDimensional() sage> V in C0 False sage> v = V.random_element() sage> V0 =

Re: [sage-devel] Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

You are right, must be a join with EnumeratedSet (Finite is an axiom but enumerated is not). On 23/08/16 11:59, Kwankyu Lee wrote: Yes. In your case it will be one of .Finite() or .Finite().Enumerated() or .Enumerated() Hmm. I get {{{ sage: m=FreeModule(GF(*2*),*2*) sage:

Re: [sage-devel] Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:01:31AM -0700, Kwankyu Lee wrote: >This is about so-called categories with axioms. Right? I think >".Finite().Enumerated()" is a nice construct. But this seems not >implemented yet... Am I right? This does not work because "Enumerated" is not an axiom (maybe

[sage-devel] Re: sage server and test_notebook

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 4:33:13 AM UTC-5, slelievre wrote: > cc-ing sage-notebook > > 2016-08-14 17:01:04 UTC+2, Mike Zabrocki: > Hi, > > > I was trying to get a sage server running on a computer at work and I kept > finding that it would not connect.  I then started debugging and ran

Re: [sage-devel] Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

> > Yes. In your case it will be one of .Finite() or .Finite().Enumerated() > or .Enumerated() Hmm. I get {{{ sage: m=FreeModule(GF(*2*),*2*) sage: c=m.category() sage: c.Finite() Category of finite finite dimensional vector spaces with basis over (finite fields and subquotients of

Re: [sage-devel] Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

This is about so-called categories with axioms. Right? I think ".Finite().Enumerated()" is a nice construct. But this seems not implemented yet... Am I right? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and

Re: [sage-devel] Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

On 23/08/16 11:42, Kwankyu Lee wrote: For example, have a look at sage/combinat/free_module.py lines 1170-1175. Are you referring specifically the construct ".FiniteDimensional()" to get a subcategory? Then can I use ".FiniteEnumerable()" for my case? I guess not... On the other hand, in

Re: [sage-devel] Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

For (1): Joining categories works. However, this seems not a standard nor an elegant way... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: [sage-devel] Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

> > For example, have a look at sage/combinat/free_module.py lines 1170-1175. > Are you referring specifically the construct ".FiniteDimensional()" to get a subcategory? Then can I use ".FiniteEnumerable()" for my case? I guess not... On the other hand, in other examples, I see ".Finite()"

Re: [sage-devel] Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

On 23/08/16 05:43, Kwankyu Lee wrote: I am not familiar with the category framework. My questions are (1) I want certain parents in a category C to be also in the category of finite enumerated sets such that I can use .list() method. Not all objects in the category C is not finite. What is the

[sage-devel] Re: possibly controversial question: "Can I create commercial software using SageMath?"

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:47:37 AM UTC+1, Robert Dodier wrote: > > On 2016-08-20, Volker Braun wrote: > > > And, as you know, if there is any question about interpretation then > > the court will almost certainly side with the interpretations written > >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Iterators and KeyboardInterrupt

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 10:16:53 AM UTC+2, Salvatore Stella wrote: > > Indeed RecursivelyEnumeratedSet seems to be a good fit for my needs. > The only problem I encountered so far is that it does not handle > KeybordInterrupts nicely either: if you interrupt the computation of >

[sage-devel] Re: [Yet again] Sage's R vs system's R

I agree that losing a standard package for failing to build it on one particular target would be bad. >From Trac#20523 : Replying to [comment:11 embray]: On Cygwin I needed to `apt-cyg install liblzma-devel` (if you have `apt-cyg`, otherwise use setup

[sage-devel] Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

I am not familiar with the category framework. My questions are (1) I want certain parents in a category C to be also in the category of finite enumerated sets such that I can use .list() method. Not all objects in the category C is not finite. What is the standard way to implement that? (2)

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Iterators and KeyboardInterrupt

Indeed RecursivelyEnumeratedSet seems to be a good fit for my needs. The only problem I encountered so far is that it does not handle KeybordInterrupts nicely either: if you interrupt the computation of graded_component(n) then graded_component(m) with m [2016-08-23 00:51:34]: > > Are you

[sage-devel] Re: Iterators and KeyboardInterrupt

> > > Are you really getting benefit from storing the state (i.e., the actual > > iterator) on the parent itself? (I see you haven't made ClusterAlgebra > > UniqueRepresentation, so it's not an immediate bug to have it this way) > > Perhaps it's cleaner to hand out iterator objects that are

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Multiple versions of SageMath's documentation online

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:10:55AM -0700, Samuel Lelievre wrote: >I guess once the Google indexing of doc.sagemath.org is solved, >we should probably remove this redirection. No rush, but that would be nice indeed. It should be easy to add a banner on the old combinat doc to warn that

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Multiple versions of SageMath's documentation online

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:10:55AM -0700, Samuel Lelievre wrote: >I guess once the Google indexing of doc.sagemath.org is solved, >we should probably remove this redirection. No rush, but that would be nice indeed. It should be easy to add a banner on the old combinat doc to warn that