2014-03-18 19:16 GMT+01:00 Thierry sage-googlesu...@lma.metelu.net:
Is Sage able to allow a coercion from A to B, but the coercion map is
not the same as the conversion map there (i mean, could the coercion be
a partial map of the conversion) ?
In Sage/python, you can do whatever you want, but
roed.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Marc Mezzarobba wrote:
Marco Streng wrote:
So the choices are:
1) explicit conversion RR -- RIF: allow / disallow
2) explicit conversion RIF -- RR: allow / disallow
3) automatic coercisions: disallow / (RR--RIF) / (RIF--RR)
[...]
My vote is:
1) allow
2) allow
3
) allow
2) disallow
3) from RR to RIF
My vote is:
1) allow
2) allow
3) from RIF to RR
Best,
Marco
Op woensdag 28 augustus 2013 12:00:28 UTC+2 schreef Marco Streng:
It seems like everyone agrees that coercions from RR to RIF should be
removed, so I created
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket
2014-01-30 Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com
Hi Volker,
I see. So is my understanding correct, that the proper usage of the
ECM is as follows:
1. Determine if N is prime, using pari(N).ispseudoprime(). The
standard conjecture is that there exist infinitely many
counterexamples, even
2013/10/8 John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com
Now a mathematician would argue that the last one should raise some
kind of error since we are apparently asking for the equality of
objects in incomparable domains. But Python requires (I believe) that
== should always return True or False, so
2013/10/8 Peter Bruin pjbr...@gmail.com
The only two options that seem acceptable to me are
- disallowing RR(oo) (if RR is taken to represent the field of real
numbers as opposed to the extended real line);
Sage's in is not a mathematical \in, Sage's RR is not the field of
real numbers.
2013/10/8 Peter Bruin pjbr...@gmail.com
sage: Mod(2,6)==Mod(4,8)
True
sage: Mod(1,3)==Mod(2,4)
False
Wow, that's because the first two are compared in the common quotient
Zmod(2) of Zmod(6) and Zmod(8), but a special case was made to disallow
using the common quotient Zmod(1) of Zmod(3)
2013/10/7 Jori Mantysalo jori.mantys...@uta.fi
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, John Cremona wrote:
sage: R.x,y = ZZ[]; print (4*x^2-1).factor()
--**--**
---
NotImplementedError Traceback (most recent call
last)
2013/10/5 William Stein wst...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Greg Laun greg.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Peter. I agree that infinity in RR is a big problem. For those
following the discussion, Peter updated Trac ticket #11506 to reflect
this
concern and it is now marked as
2013/10/4 Jori Mantysalo jori.mantys...@uta.fi
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Volker Braun wrote:
If the integral polynomial is not monic then the roots need not be
integral:
sage: R.x = QQ[]
sage: (4*x^2-1).factor()
(4) * (x - 1/2) * (x + 1/2)
(4*x^2-1) = (2*x-1)*(2*x+1)
ZZ[x] has unique
Hi sage-devel,
Has anyone recently try to build sage with Intel's compilers?
And if so, does that result in a fully functional sage and is there a
significant speed gain?
Thanks!
Marco
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To
,
but I think of this operation as a right action of RR on RIF by
translations of the intervals and **not** as an addition.
Best,
Vincent
2013/8/26 Marco Streng marco.str...@gmail.com:
2013/8/26 Marc Mezzarobba m...@mezzarobba.net
Hi,
Sage happily coerces floating-point
2013/7/13 Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com:
But the question is, how is this right action that you speak of implemented
in Sage?
+1 to this comment of Volker. And the notation should be ^ (hat)
I had Darij's problem as well, and many others probably did as well.
In a right action, I would
2013/7/15 Peter Bruin pjbr...@gmail.com:
Hi Marco and all,
I had Darij's problem as well, and many others probably did as well.
In a right action, I would prefer p(1) to give a warning. In a right
action, I would want some notation where p is on the right, preferably
1^p (1 hat p).
That
I scanned my mac with Bitdefender today, and it deleted
sage-5.10.rc2/local/lib/python2.7/test/testbz2_bigmem.bz2
sage-5.10.rc2/spkg/standard/python-2.7.4.p0.spkg
It also attempted to delete
sage-5.10.rc2.tar
The reason and fix are here:
http://bugs.python.org/issue17843
quote: Apparently
Thanks!
2013/6/21 leif not.rea...@online.de:
Marco Streng wrote:
I scanned my mac with Bitdefender today, and it deleted
sage-5.10.rc2/local/lib/python2.7/test/testbz2_bigmem.bz2
sage-5.10.rc2/spkg/standard/python-2.7.4.p0.spkg
It also attempted to delete
sage-5.10.rc2.tar
This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14740
2013/5/28 Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be:
On 05/28/2013 11:37 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
It might depend on when you are pressing ctrl-c; It didn't work when I
tried it.
I don't know what I can say, for me it always works.
of minutes before pressing Ctrl+C.
And closing the Terminal window on my Mac did not always kill the process
when this happened.
2013/5/27 Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be
On 05/27/2013 09:57 PM, Marco Streng wrote:
5.10.beta2, Mac 10.6
and also 5.9.beta5, Linux
I'm building beta5 now
I
2013/5/27 Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be
On 05/27/2013 12:23 AM, Marco Streng wrote:
sage: Qa12.kappa12 = NumberField(x^14 - 26*x^13 + 325*x^12 - 2548*x^11
+ 13832*x^10 - 54340*x^9 + 157118*x^8 - 333580*x^7 + 509366*x^6 -
534820*x^5 + 354536*x^4 - 124852*x^3 + 15145*x^2 - 33514*x + 13
2013/5/27 Marco Streng marco.str...@gmail.com
2013/5/27 Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be
On 05/27/2013 12:23 AM, Marco Streng wrote:
sage: Qa12.kappa12 = NumberField(x^14 - 26*x^13 + 325*x^12 - 2548*x^11
+ 13832*x^10 - 54340*x^9 + 157118*x^8 - 333580*x^7 + 509366*x^6 -
534820*x^5
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Karl-Dieter Crisman
kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
Just pass this on to anyone who might know the answer (you? sage-nt?) -
the
same person asked this twice:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11850418/computing-maximal-orders-in-large-number-fields-with-sage
As for the question html( In which kind of school do they teach
$\\sqrt{-2.4995} = - i 1.58$ ??? );, I think any good school that teaches
about complex numbers should teach that both - i 1.58 and i 1.58
are equally valid (approximate) square roots of -2.4995. One choice is as
good as another. Any
This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14523
There are indeed choices to be made first, all options sound sensible.
2013/5/2 Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca
On May 1, 9:45 am, Marco Streng marco.str...@gmail.com wrote:
And how to fix this? I have three ideas that all have a downside
Dear sage-devel,
Here's a minimal version of something that happened to me a few times
recently:
{{{
17:57:03:~$ touch myfile.sage
17:57:05:~$ sage
--
| Sage Version 5.8, Release Date: 2013-03-15 |
| Type
I can review the ticket you link to, if you can find a reviewer for the
dependencies first.
Most notably: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12553 Add interface
for PALP polytope databases
2013/4/14 Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com
There is a somewhat interdisciplinary ticket for
2013/2/19 Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be:
On 2013-02-19 20:54, David Roe wrote:
I'm fairly sure the problem is that the defining polynomial for the
relative extension is not monic. One solution would be to use an
equivalent monic polynomial and keep track of a simple transformation
I don't think it is a bug, rather it is a question about what polynomials are.
CDF['x'](0) is the zero polynomial, with no coefficients, which really
is equal to 0, not just a numerical 0.0.
Polynomials in Sage have a well-defined degree, and that means that
the leading coefficient cannot be
2012/11/12 Nicolas M. Thiery nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr
First thing: for those who want to know more on what a facade is:
sage: S = Sets()
sage: S.Facade?
Object `S.Facade` not found.
It should be:
sage: S.Facades?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
2012/10/28 Charles Bouillaguet charles.bouillag...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
While playing with the quotient of a polynomial ring with an ideal, I
encountered several glitches.
*) Trying to compute the inverse of something which is not invertible.
I know it is kind of weird to try this. However,
2012/8/14 Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu:
TestsPassed PluginFailed, so it will only ever be blue if all tests
I assume this is an implication arrow to the left. So ok, forget
about my suggestion and thanks for the explanation!
passed but one or more plugins failed
--
--
To
2012/8/14 Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu:
Volkers point is right on: the patchbot is purely advisory.
Then I suggest a small change to the patchbot.
iirc, the patchbot (and its blob on trac) shows a huge plugin failed
when there are trailing whitespaces on changed/added lines,
On 13/08/2012 06:50, David Roe wrote:
Thanks for the pointer to that ticket, which explains the change in the the
is_unit() behavior.
Why should the inverse of four succeed when the result is not in K?
sage: four^-1 in K
False
The order K is analogous to the ring of integers inside QQ. So
These outputs look fine to me. See also
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11673
2012/8/11 Rob Beezer goo...@beezer.cotse.net:
Is this a bug?
First example is from Judson's abstract algebra text. Note that
.is_unit() returned True in sage 4.8.
sage: sage: K.x,y = ZZ[sqrt(-3)]; K
I'm just letting the list know that there is a patch
at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13345 deprecating the default
implementation of Ideal_generic.reduce in favour of NotImplementedError.
Op maandag 30 juli 2012 11:36:06 UTC+2 schreef Marco Streng het volgende:
2012/7/30 Thomas
2012/7/30 Thomas Feulner thomas.feul...@uni-bayreuth.de:
Hi,
in the definition of a QuotientRing there is the following assumption
ASSUMPTION:
``I`` has a method ``I.reduce(x)`` returning the normal form
of elements `x\in R`. In other words, it is required that
not suitable for fast computations due to the high
dimension.
best
/David
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:39:34 PM UTC-6, Marco Streng wrote:
Op 22-05-2012 15:26, Volker Braun schreef:
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:16:08 AM UTC-4, Marco Streng wrote:
Definitely! That would make it possible
Op 22-05-2012 4:09, David Eklund schreef:
Hi Volker,
thanks for the advice! I think basing the implementation on the Cox ring
is what I wanted anyway.
If any number theory people are reading this I think it is worth
thinking about making hyperelliptic curves subvarieties of weighted
Op 22-05-2012 15:26, Volker Braun schreef:
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:16:08 AM UTC-4, Marco Streng wrote:
Definitely! That would make it possible to have a smooth projective
model, with the correct points at infinity.
I don't understand that sentence - a smooth elliptic surface
I think it is sage.structure.coerce_actions.fast_mul in
sage/structure/coerce_actions.pyx
That function is called when I do
sage: 100*P
And it is a double-and-add.
2012/4/18 Daniel Krenn kr...@aon.at:
If I perform a scalar multiplication e.g. of an integer with a module
element, it
On 07/02/2012 15:43, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/7/12 9:34 AM, John H Palmieri wrote:
Or as part of the doctest normalize G.round(6): multiply by -1 if the
real part of the (0,0) entry is positive. If it gets too complicated,
maybe it should be moved to a TESTS block instead of an EXAMPLES block.
On 07/02/2012 16:06, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/7/12 9:55 AM, Marco Streng wrote:
On 07/02/2012 15:43, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/7/12 9:34 AM, John H Palmieri wrote:
Or as part of the doctest normalize G.round(6): multiply by -1 if
the
real part of the (0,0) entry is positive. If it gets too
Op 26-01-2012 8:22, Robert Bradshaw schreef:
I would like to propose the addition of a matrix literal syntax, namely
sage: [1, 2; 3, 4]
[1 2]
[3 4]
+1
even gp has this
A second question, what of the basering?
Consistency with [Mm]atrix([[1,2],[3,4]]) would be most clear. So
would you
2012/1/26 Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com:
No, that's not good.
Cause this syntax forbids 1-row matrices to be entered in this format
(as it won't be possible to distinguish it from a list!)
How about [1,2,3;] for matrix([[1,2,3]])?
This problem and solution are similar to (1,) for a 1-tuple
What would Matlab users think of having to learn the habit of putting
. behind their integers in Sage, e.g.?
sage: matrix([[1.,2],[3,4]]).base_ring()
Real Field with 53 bits of precision
sage: matrix([[1/1,2],[3,4]]).base_ring()
Rational Field
This would be a possible warning to engineers: Make
2012/1/26 Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com:
That's part of the problem pointed out in an earlier message---our RR
matrices really are pretty bad for numerical things, but RDF matrices are
the way to go (the RDF matrices use standard numerical algorithms for the
most part, whereas RR
Should [a, b; c, d] be a valid syntax for matrix construction in Sage?
[ X ] Yes, I love this syntax! It would be make life better for me and
my students.
[ ] I wouldn't oppose, but may require some convincing.
[ ] No, that's a horrible idea.
Why?
Short, intuitive, clear, coincides with gp
On 11/01/2012 11:46, Simon King wrote:
2) A more general consideration: The coercion model prefers to have
unique parents. But many people think that A == B should mean A
and B are canonically isomorphic, and not just A is B. That could
be solved by making the coercion model consequently use
On 20/12/2011 08:59, syd.lavas...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is essential (speaking priority) to have a parallel to
Magam
RationalExtensionRepresentation(F) : FldFunG - FldFun
The function field F represented as an extension of a rational
function field. This function gives the
2011/12/11 William Stein wst...@gmail.com:
sage: parent(gcd(Mod(5,7), 7))
Integer Ring
which... sucks! I consider this a bug. We should definitely have
that the gcd is in parent(Mod(5,7)).
This bug seems to be as old as http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4443
If a in gcd(a,b) has
2011/12/11 Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be:
On 2011-12-11 21:44, Marco Streng wrote:
2011/12/11 William Stein wst...@gmail.com:
sage: parent(gcd(Mod(5,7), 7))
Integer Ring
which... sucks! I consider this a bug. We should definitely have
that the gcd is in parent(Mod(5,7
2011/12/11 Marco Streng marco.str...@gmail.com:
did correct the type from Integer to IntegerMod.
(sorry, that should have been did not)
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr
2011/12/11 Marco Streng marco.str...@gmail.com:
Recently, #10771 changed the answer from 1 to 5 (both correct), but
(this change was caused by the fact that 7 is now coerced to ZZ/7ZZ
first, before being coerced back to ZZ, where it is 0)
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel
Hi Sage-devel and Sage-edu,
I was wondering if we have any numbers on how much Sage is used outside
university mathematics, i.e,
- education outside universities (e.g. secondary schools)
- education outside mathematics (e.g. physics, engineering, ...)
- academic research outside mathematics
-
New and easier patch is ready for review!
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11812
The patch gives sage.misc.preparser.load an option preparse_to_file,
which defaults to True for attach and False for load. Preparsing to a
file gives good tracebacks, preparsing to memory gives keeps the
There is a problem with my patch (#11812). Can anyone help me?
I wanted to have a doctest in there that really tests whether the
traceback contains certain substrings. Python doctesting ignores the
content of a traceback. So to test the content of the traceback, I
tried starting a nested Sage
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Anna Haensch annahaen...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any way in sage, or rather python, to define a function which
takes as its input n variables, rather than assigning a fixed
number?
I've just written a piece of code for the Quadratic Forms module,
On 18 sep, 17:49, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Sorry, I thought your suggestion was that there should be a
cleartraceback(hence, a temporary file) when youattachsomething, and
when you load something then it should be as efficient as possible,
hence, accepting less descriptive
Thanks Conrado, that works perfectly. It is now ticket #11812.
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11812
As for the efficiency: how big was the improvement here in efficiency?
Is this significant for load or for attach or both?
Can/should we make a distinction between load and attach?
If
On Sep 18, 12:18 pm, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Same here. So, I am +1 to your suggestion.
Thanks, but what was my suggestion?
I didn't write it very explicitly in that message, but I guess I
argued for going back to the old behaviour completely. If people
object to that, then
On Sep 18, 4:27 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
There was some good reason for making the change (it fixed a bug?), so
somebody should look into that, right?
I'm pretty sure *I* made the change, but I can't remember why at this
moment.
Hi William,
You wrote the current version
On Sep 18, 5:41 pm, Conrado P. L. Gouvêa conrado...@gmail.com wrote:
Sage 4.3
used to get the full path of the .sage file, replace '/' by '_' and
write it to a temp file. It should be easier just to port the older
code but I couldn't find where this is handled...
The function
I'd say we should stick with Python's convention 0^0 = 1.
Some additional information:
on sage-nt
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-nt/browse_thread/thread/67e53f8e5d5061d2/
we chose to follow Python's convention 0^0 = 1 through a bit further.
As for Maarten's examples, there are some more in
Hi all,
Is it just me, or is magma(K) broken for number fields K?
The following example is in number_field.py (Sage 4.6.2):
===
sage: R.t = QQ[]
sage: K.a = NumberField(t^2 + 1)
sage: K._magma_init_(magma)# optional - magma
Hi sage-devel,
When debuggin code that is loaded into or attached to a Sage session,
the tracebacks are not very informative: they refer to string instead
of to the file name, and give no line numbers or code snippets. This
makes it hard to find out where the error is.
Can this be changed
On Apr 19, 2:47 pm, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a ticket fixing this at #7870, merged in 4.7.alpha4.
Thanks, that ticket looks good.
Which version were you using?
Sage 4.6.2, Magma V2.16-7
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To
On Apr 19, 3:18 pm, pipedream jan.groenew...@gmail.com wrote:
sage: %cpaste
Pasting code; enter '--' alone on the line to stop.
:def f(x):
: if x == 1:
: return 2
: return 1
:--
sage: f(1)
2
Thanks!
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
Op 30-12-2010 22:16, Robert Bradshaw schreef:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, daveloefflerdave.loeff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:41 pm, Robert Bradshawrober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
And otherwise it does a best guess kind of approach, which is decent
(especially if there is only
In this particular case it were pari bugs 1143 (fixed in 12769) and
1144 (fixed an hour earlier it seems).
On 3 dec, 18:50, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2010-12-03 16:15, Marco Streng wrote: I encountered a bug in pari 2.4.3
(alpha) while working on a sage
ticket. I
How often will / should pari be updated within sage?
I encountered a bug in pari 2.4.3 (alpha) while working on a sage ticket. I
reported it to pari, and they fixed it the same day. But then it takes some
time for this fix to reach sage, or we could update sage with bug fixes
immediately.
I
Hi John,
How did you solve this problem in the end? I seem to have the same
problem on the same machine trying to build sage-4.5.3 and
sage-4.6.1.alpha0.
Marco
On 4 sep 2009, 15:31, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
On this machine, which built 4.1.1 fine:
Robert Bradshaw schreef:
What should be done is either fixing LazyNamedUnop to preserve
documentation, or populating these methods at class creation time
(rather than attribute lookup time, perhaps dynamically creating a
docstring for them). I don't think it's a good idea to hard code every
one
An earlier topic on the same problem is
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/2821c770f3c62efd
Apparently True*2 was fixed (now returns 2), but True*SR(2) wasn't
(still returns 1). I think Robert Bradshaw made the patch back then,
so he knows how to fix this (something to
Hi,
I have a question that I thought was a simple python question, but I was
unable to find the answer on the internet.
Suppose I want to find out if root is a valid keyword argument for the
is_square function of an object a. Is there a good way to do this?
I tried the following for
Hi all,
I'm getting a bit confused about Parent objects and why
sage.schemes.generic.scheme.Scheme extends Parent.
Schemes are not really containers of anything, right? Calling
S.an_element() currently gives a NotImplementedError for most schemes,
and TestSuite(S).run() will give lots of
On 12 jul, 18:54, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 12, 2010, Marco Streng marco.str...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm getting a bit confused about Parent objects and why
sage.schemes.generic.scheme.Scheme extends Parent.
Schemes are not really containers of anything
I found that in Sage 3.4,
True * Integer(2)returnsint(1)
I think it would be better if the output were either 2 or a type
error. This seems to be a problem with Sage integers, python integers
work just fine.
Some more details:
76 matches
Mail list logo
