Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal: Demote jupyter-jsmol and tachyon to optional

It appears to me that we are seeing a culture clash here. I think what Marc says is correct in regard to mac users, but, for all I know, it may be less (or not at all) true about linux users. In particular, I am pretty sure that the vast majority of mac users have never built a program from so

[sage-devel] Re: hyperbolic_polygon bug

This was previously reported as issue #32362 on github , so any further discussion should take place there. The solution suggested there is to have sagemath calculate endpoints in the Poincare disk model, instead of in the upper half plane model.

[sage-devel] Re: Bug in `discrete_log(...,bounds=(1,p.isqrt()))`

I opened an issue at github #38316 . Let's continue the discussion there. On Sunday, June 30, 2024 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-4 Georgi Guninski wrote: > I think the problem is abusing the factorization of the group order > and later doing CRT. > > The foll

Re: [sage-devel] sensational bug!

I think this is issue #35715 on the sagemath github. So I think the discussion should go there. On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 6:53:04 AM UTC-5 Martin R wrote: > It is not my machine, just the bot, se

[sage-devel] Re: containment

Yes. Elements of F are linear combinations of the basis vectors a and b. Since 5/3 is not such a linear combination, it is certainly not in F. On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 4:35:56 PM UTC-5 Martin R wrote: > In combinat/free_module.py, CombinatorialFreeModule, I find the doctest > below. >

[sage-devel] Re: Exception in floor(tanh(91))

The ValueError is correct -- the quantity is so close to 1 that numerics cannot tell whether the floor is 0 or 1. You could report a bug to gp, though, because the correct answer is 0, not 1. On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 10:48:41 AM UTC-5 Georgi Guninski wrote: > hi, > > floor(tanh(91)) > >

Re: [sage-devel] Unify error for trying to invert non-invertible elements

Description of RunTimeError from docs.python.org: "Raised when an error is detected that doesn’t fall in any of the other categories. The associated value is a string indicating what precisely went wrong." It is for exceptions that cannot be categorized, so I believe it is indeed just a catch-a

[sage-devel] Re: maxima-to-sr exception in `sum(1/(5*n)-1/(5*n+1),n,2,oo)`

Thanks for reporting the bug. I opened issue #36770 to track this, and provided a diagnosis there. On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 7:30:06 AM UTC-7 Georgi Guninski wrote: > ``` > n=var('n') > su1=s

[sage-devel] Re: Segmentation Fault

I opened issue #35696 <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/35696> for this, and put a diagnosis there. On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:00:05 PM UTC-6 dmo...@deductivepress.ca wrote: > I'm surprised that this hasn't been reported previously, because we can > get a cras

[sage-devel] Re: Segmentation Fault

I'm surprised that this hasn't been reported previously, because we can get a crash even without atan or any division: sin( x*(x+1) - x^2 - x ) # this crashes sage This also crashes with sinh or cos or tan in the place of sin, but not with exp or log. PS I verified on CoCalc that this is no

Re: [sage-devel] web site from cocalc but in our domain

FYI: There is a link to https://www.sagemath.org/ on the cocalc homepage . It is near the bottom, in the section of "Available Tools" under the sagemath logo and the title *Sage Worksheets:* "Sage Worksheets are similar to Jupyter Noteb

[sage-devel] Re: Exception in elliptic curve over number field with non-monic defining polynomial

Thanks for reporting the bug. This is an error in the interface with pari. The documentation of `NumberField` says: "Since SageMath 6.9, number fields may be defined by polynomials that are not necessarily integral or monic. The only notable practical point is that in t

[sage-devel] Re: Bug in poset

P erroneously thinks that GA(1,5) is less than A5. I have no idea what's causing that either. On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 11:21:39 AM UTC-7 Trevor Karn wrote: > Thanks for the confirmation. I'll double check this is not a logic bug > before I open a ticket. > > On Wednesday, January 11,

[sage-devel] Re: Bug in poset

I confirm the error: P.maximal_elements() contains S5 and A5. As a possibly minimal example, it suffices to use only the last 3 groups: I also see the error with P = Poset(data=(groups[16:], compare), element_labels=strs[16:]). Please open a ticket. On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 9:58:32 A

[sage-devel] Re: New algorithm for graph edge coloring

ining this behavior for every graph >> make sense? If it is intended though, I'd have to add an edge case that >> appends an empty array to the result if Delta == number of edges, which >> sounds a bit counter-intuitive, just like giving a random edge a new color >&g

[sage-devel] Re: Automaton.language() does not pass **kwargs to FSMProcessIterator

Thanks for the bug report. I think you are right that the keyword arguments are being ignored, so I opened trac ticket #34810 . Further discussion should be posted there. However, your second problem is not a bug. The initial state needs to be a state,

[sage-devel] Re: New algorithm for graph edge coloring

I agree that this seems to be a good improvement. I think it should replace the current "vizing" algorithm, instead of adding a new function to the namespace. A minor issue is that (if I understand correctly) the current vizing algorithm always gives a colouring with Delta + 1 colours. If tha

[sage-devel] Re: [Bug report] quaternionic polynomial division gives incorrect results

Thanks for reporting the bug. I opened trac ticket #34733 for this. On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 3:20:51 AM UTC-7 pkopr...@pkoprowski.eu wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I just discovered a bug in the polynomial division over quaternion > algebras. I don

Re: [sage-devel] Solving a system of linear equations with complex numbers yields false solution

Thanks for the simpler example. I copied it to the trac ticket (#34650) . Please post any further comments to the trac ticket, instead of to this discussion. On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 11:49:37 AM UTC-6 emanuel.c...@gmail.com wrote: > FWIW, solve

Re: [sage-devel] Error building sage-9.7 in macOS Monterey with package giac-1.9.0.15p0

To deal with this problem, I did: ./configure --with-system-pari=no make On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 10:24:34 AM UTC-6 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sette Diop wrote: > > > > Hi: > > > > I am building sage-9.7 on macOS 12.6 (Monterey) and run through this > e

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: move Sage development to Github

+1 for Github On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 11:23:36 AM UTC-6 David Roe wrote: > Dear Sage developers, > Following extensive discussion, both recently > > (prompted > by issues upgrading the trac server) and over >

[sage-devel] Re: funny behaviour of Zmod

You misspelled "multiplicative": you wrote "tl" instead of "lt". It works if you spell it correctly: sage: Zmod(257)(4).multiplicative_order() 8 On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 1:03:14 AM UTC-6 dantetante wrote: > Hello list, > > could this (see below) be a bug? > When I try Zmod(17)(4).multipl

Re: [sage-devel] abort() in __gmpz_realloc of symbolic expression with `gmp: overflow in mpz type`

I created trac ticket #34492 to continue this discussion, but it may require an upstream fix in gmp. On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 7:32:27 AM UTC-6 vdelecroix wrote: > Indeed, there is something wrong with the error handling of exponents > > {{{ > sage:

[sage-devel] Re: Polling for sphinx background style

grayish > detoned >> original On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 12:51:46 AM UTC-6 sver...@gmail.com wrote: > grayish (3) > > The green in (1) is quite an eyesore, I think. > > On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 5:25:36 AM UTC+2 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> According to the recent decision, I applied s

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Polling for pygments style for our future doc

sphinx > default >> tango I agree with the previous criticisms of tango: low contrast (makes it hard to read), italic output, and blue numbers that are too intense. On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 11:13:17 AM UTC-6 David Roe wrote: > default > sphinx > tango. I agree that the italics are the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal: make Furo a standard package

+1 from me, too. Thanks for doing this. On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 11:14:41 AM UTC-6 David Roe wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:29 AM Eric Gourgoulhon > wrote: > >> Le jeudi 4 août 2022 à 03:29:07 UTC+2, Kwankyu Lee a écrit : >> >>> So we propose here to upgrade the Furo package to a sta

[sage-devel] Re: latex function and operations with fraction subscripts

Thanks for reporting the unpickling issue. I opened trac ticket #34199 to address this. I posted a fix there that should solve the latex_name problem for you if you can rebuild sagemath from source, but I do not know much about pickling and I think this

Re: [sage-devel] Sign issue in special values of Legendre Polynomials

Thanks for reporting the bug. I opened trac ticket #33962 to fix it. On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:21:01 PM UTC-6 vdelecroix wrote: > There is indeed a problem > > sage: legendre_P(2, 0) > 1/2 > sage: legendre_P(2.0, 0.0) > -0.500 > > On Mon, 6

[sage-devel] Re: Error: Lie algebra cohomology of subalgebras

Thanks for reporting the bug. I opened trac ticket #33836 to discuss it. On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 10:46:31 AM UTC-7 Josh Mundinger wrote: > The Lie algebra method g.chevalley_eilenberg_complex() returns an error > when g is at least certain Lie subalg

[sage-devel] Re: Looks like a problem somewhere!

What version of sage are you using? This should have been fixed in version 9.2 (and later) by trac ticket #29740 . On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 1:41:31 PM UTC-7 hany.mha...@gmail.com wrote: > Guys, > I was playing with sage executing this code: > d = {0:

[sage-devel] Re: Sage does wrong vector comparison when using assume

Thanks for reporting the bug. The problem comes from the fact that `if lhs != rhs:` is not the same as `if not(lhs == rhs):` when `lhs` and `rhs` are in `SR`, and the test for equality of vectors uses the wrong one. I opened trac ticket #33697 to fix this

[sage-devel] Re: integrate() doesn't respect "real_part"

Thanks for the bug report. I opened trac tickets #33664 and #33665 , because there actually seem to be two problems: the interface to maxima, and the interface to giac. On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:23:51 AM UTC-6

[sage-devel] Re: --random-seed and consistent doctest results

The fact that the doctest fails with some random seeds means there is a bug. (This particular bug is tracked at trac ticket #32773 .) Ever since trac ticket #29935 was merged, the test suite chooses the random se

[sage-devel] Re: Something.expand() is 0 but factor() is not zero

I think this is indeed a bug, so thanks for reporting it. My impression from a quick look at the code is that sagemath expands the expression into a polynomial (a linear combination of monomials) before trying to factor it. If the expansion has only a single term (a constant times a monomial),

Re: [sage-devel] Regarding contributing in enhancement ticket 7231

I added a more specific comment on the trac ticket . If there is any further discussion, it should probably happen on the ticket. On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 7:24:36 AM UTC-6 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 12:00 PM Manika Sharma > wrote:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.6

I think the upgrade was done on ticket #33398, which was merged into the release manager's branch almost immediately after the 9.6.beta4 release, so I believe it will be in 9.6.beta5. There should not be any need for another ticket. On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 5:26:37 AM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.co

Re: [sage-devel] Symbolic sum giving incorrect answers

Thanks for the bug report. I think this is new (although it is similar to #31844 ), so I opened ticket #33326 . It is a bug in maxima. On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:54:28 PM UTC-7 Samuel Lelievre wrote: > Pos

[sage-devel] Re: Bug with a very specific integral computed with giac

I confirm the problem so please open a ticket. I tried 9.5rc4 on MacOS 11.5.2, I tried 9.4 and 9.5rc4 on Ubuntu 20.04 (CoCalc), and I tried 9.5rc3 on a 32-bit Debian virtual machine. Maybe something would have happened eventually, but none of them gave an answer within 20 minutes. The giac ve

Re: [sage-devel] Whats the plan for random doctests with floating point numbers?

In the long run, we want to fix the doctests so they always pass (as described in the previous comment). However, in the short run, I think it is fine to add set_random_seed(0) # failed doctest - see trac ticket n where the description of ticket n says it is adding `set_random_seed`

[sage-devel] Re: \Bold command definition in every LaTeX output

Yes, this is the intended behaviour. If you don't like it, then, as a workaround, you could try to clear the variable called "sage_configurable_latex_macros". YMMV, but this works for me in a fresh sage session: sage: from sage.misc.latex_macros import sage_configurable_latex_macros sa

[sage-devel] Re: streamline_plot Error

The examples that I tried work correctly, so please post a specific example that gives an incorrect plot. (Also, what version of sagemath are you using?) On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 5:30:31 PM UTC-7 Esdras Jafet wrote: > There is some error in streamline_plot. Curves are plotted wrong in t

[sage-devel] Re: prime_pi gives wrong output

This is a known bug. The additional example could be added as a comment on trac ticket #24960 . On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 12:49:24 PM UTC-7 martin@gmail.com wrote: > Hello, > > prime_pi(281474961965055) gives correct output 8731188419994. > > pr

Re: [sage-devel] hypergraph.nauty when creating singletons gives SIGSEGV

ted return", which, from the examples, I interpreted to be a complaint about erroneous commas. Sorry if I'm off base. On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 12:32:52 PM UTC-6 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Aug 2021, 21:13 dmo...@deductivepress.ca, < > dmo...@deductivepress

Re: [sage-devel] hypergraph.nauty when creating singletons gives SIGSEGV

I don't think there is any problem -- the output is correct. (And the original message seems to have been deleted.) It is just that python prints an extra comma at the end of tuples of length 1, in order to make it clear that the parentheses represent a tuple. For example: sage: tuple([tuple

Re: [sage-devel] Possible bug report: Incorrect SymbolicSeries expansion (spurious 1/x term)

Thanks for reporting the bug. It is now trac ticket #31645 , and I expect to upload a fix soon. On Friday, April 9, 2021 at 9:29:26 AM UTC-6 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 4:09 PM Vincent Delecroix > <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >

[sage-devel] Re: https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.3

fwiw, I am not seeing the bug: "they previously broke convexity" looks fine on my computer. (I tried with Firefox and Safari on MacOS 10.15.7.) On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 10:10:08 AM UTC-6 Samuel Lelievre wrote: > 2021-03-21 14:49:57 UTC, Eric Gourgoulhon: > > > > I've noticed a possible issue

Re: [sage-devel] sage -b is broken

I believe this was fixed by gh-kliem in trac #31263. On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 10:08:45 AM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > finally :-) (not sure bug or feature) > > well, > > make build > > works > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021, 17:05 John H Palmieri, wrote: > >> I'm not sure when it happened, bu

Re: [sage-devel] SSL missing

The mac app is not being supported and cannot be expected to work any more. The discussion on trac ticket #29710 includes comments that "It seems it is only causing trouble" and "this version of mac app must be retired", and ends with "mac app has been removed". Trac ticket #31000 is "Provide ma

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in expansion of a symbolic expression, which happens to be a rational function

I think the trac ticket makes it clear that there is a bug (even though different outcomes from "is_polynomial" do not necessarily mean there is a problem). The ticket has an example where "expand" seems to turn all occurrences of z^-1 to z. See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31077#comment:5

[sage-devel] Re: is_invertible() too slow comparing to rank() over GF(2^k)

Speeding up by a factor of 4500 in a common use case sounds like a good idea. Please open a ticket. (Or do you want me to do it?) On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 11:05:58 PM UTC-7 a.simpl...@gmail.com wrote: > I am running Sagemath 9.1 on macOS 10.15.17 > but I think this issue is more about ma

[sage-devel] Re: quo_rem for multivariate Laurent polynomial rings

I agree that this needs to be fixed. Offhand, I don't know what the answer should be (for example, (1/(x*y), 0) also seems reasonable), but (0,1) is certainly not correct. So please do open a ticket. Please correct the typo when you make the ticket, though: q*y + r == x should be q*y + r == 1/

Re: [sage-devel] Errors in determinant of 'large' symbolic matrices as opposed to working over better rings

.subs({p2:0}).change_ring(SR).det().factor()}") > > or > > print(f"Laurent: {L.subs({Q0:1,Q1:1}).det()}") > print(f"SR: {L.subs({Q0:1,Q1:1}).change_ring(SR).det().factor()}") > > On Friday, December 18, 2020 at 7:48:18 AM UTC dmo...@deductivepress.ca &

Re: [sage-devel] Errors in determinant of 'large' symbolic matrices as opposed to working over better rings

That does indeed seem simple. Here is an even shorter version that only needs one matrix. R = LaurentPolynomialRing(QQ, "p1, p2, p3, p4, Q0, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, w, z") p1, p2, p3, p4, Q0, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, w, z = R.gens() L = Matrix([[-p1, Q1, 0, 0, 0, -4*Q0/z, 0, 0, 0], [Q1, p1-p2, Q2, 0,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Global Virtual Sage Days 110 - October 29-30, 2020 (all timezones) Announcement

I get an error ("This recording does not exist. (3,301)") when I click on the link for the video of Julian Rüth's talk on researchseminars.org. On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 9:05:50 AM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > some video links are at > https://researchseminars.org/past_talks?keywords=sa

Re: [sage-devel] Matrix(GF(2^n)) with large n not working on SageMath 9.1

I confirm that the error occurs on CoCalc (with the 9.1 or Development kernel), so there certainly seems to be a bug somewhere, even though I do not get an error on my own computer (MacOS 10.15.5). F. = GF(2 ^ 64) Matrix(F, 5, 5)