https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/27250
--
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 sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email
I have a random doctest failure on several machines running debian. It does
not happen always, never if I doctest the file directly, only with make
ptestlong. It is more likely to happen in a virtual machine so I think it
is a type of race condition or memory management issue.
Any idea how to
I opened a ticket last week, #21782
The same problem appears in debian testing. Currently I am building sage
with gcc-5
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 2:23:19 PM UTC+2, Herbert Eisenbeis wrote:
>
> Link problem in flint-2-5.2:
> /usr/bin/ld: -r and -pie may not be used together
>
> Log
Looks like a Singular error, the first Hilbert series and second Hilbert
series returned are not consistent:
{{{
sage: gb = I.groebner_basis()
sage: h1=hilb(gb,1)
// ** _ is no standard basis
sage: h2=hilb(gb,2)
// ** _ is no standard basis
sage: Zt=ZZ['t']
sage:
In fact, I think that this feature is explicitely allowed and that, as long
as you stay within the sage library, code should not break for having a
ring with repeated variables.
However, I agree that it is weird.
Funny example:
sage: K=QQ['x,y,y,x']
sage: sum(K.gens())
x + y + y + x
sage:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 11:52:13 AM UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote:
Since my review request for the urgent bugfix for this:
sage: RLF(0) oo
False
has been hijacked by an open-ended discussion about and whether grants
ought to be acknowledged in the source tree, I'd like to break out
Dear devs,
Is there any problem login to the trac server? I am not able to login, I
have asked a new password and has arrived, but still cannot login.
Thanks
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
No, you cannot. You should always think dictionaries as unordered
structures. Dictionary keys depend not only on the keys themselves but
on the operations performed on the dictionary. Take a simple case with
hash collision:
{{{
sage: A={}
sage: B={}
sage: A[hash('a')]=0
sage: A['a']=1
sage:
While playing with ticket #10480 I have found a grey area in the
representation of power series
{{{
sage: K.w = Qp(3)[[]]
sage: f = 3^2*w + O(w^3)
sage: g = O(3)*w
sage: fg = f*g
sage: fg
0
sage: fg == 0
John,
I think you are also hitting #10255, current polynomial multiplication code
in Sage is worse than the classic school multiplication method in many
instances. Do you mind trying the code after applying #10255? And (maybe)
also #10480. The data would be very valuable to me.
Thanks,
Luis
Hi,
Can any one enlight me about what is going on here?
{{{
sage: t=(1,2,3)
sage: type(t)
tuple
sage: len(t)
3
sage: len(t)=4
sage: t
t
sage: type(t)
sage.symbolic.expression.Expression
}}}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To
On 28 feb, 17:26, Jernej Azarija azi.std...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello!
I have noticed (at least in the fields to which I made some small
contributions) that the number of reviewers is arbitrary. Sometimes there
is only one reviewer sometimes two, three..
I cannot speak for others, but I
The point is that I would be totally amazed if #12224 were to (ever) be
reviewed. Do you think that it could be reviewed twice ? :-P
Do not despair, my pet bug #10255 has the patch ready since two years
ago... ugh, that hurts. Anyone willing for reviewing it? :D
--
You received this
user@frink /opt/sage/sage
$ time true
real0m0.000s
user0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
user@frink /opt/sage/sage
$ type time
time es una palabra clave del shell
user@frink /opt/sage/sage
$ /bin/sh -c time true
real0m0.000s
user0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
user@frink /opt/sage/sage
$
I think that the following behavior is wrong.
sage: K=QQ['t,s']
sage: L=QQ['t0,t1,s0,s1']
sage: L.inject_variables()
Defining t0, t1, s0, s1
sage: Hom(K,L)([t0+t1,s0]).register_as_coercion()
sage: L.coerce_map_from(K)
Ring morphism:
From: Multivariate Polynomial Ring in t, s over Rational
I have seen that there are three projects awarded in Google summer of
code 2012
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/projects/list/google/gsoc2012
Congratulations!
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
On Nov 14, 6:11 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/11 8:44 AM, David Roe wrote:
I think I'd describe it as a feature to reduce the number of GF(7)s
floating around. There's no coercion from ZZ[x] to GF(p), regardless
of the choice of modulus. The modulus function on
I find that this is not coherent with documentation of Finite Field.
sage: G=GF(7,'a',modulus=QQ[x](x+2))
sage: G.modulus()
x + 6
sage: G.variable_name()
'x'
sage: G.polynomial_ring().hom([G.gen()])
Ring morphism:
From: Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Finite Field of size 7
To: Finite
You may also try to start a bash enviroment with sage variables set.
your_dir$ sage -sh
(sage subshell) your_dir$ make html
--
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...@googlegroups.com
For more
Hi list,
Is there any problem now with the patchbot?
I see that many tickets fail at the doctest on 4.7.1, however, if you
check the logs in most of them you will not find any failure in the
log. In some cases some tests have been killed, kind of timeout? or
there are genuine doctest failures
I am not sure if this is a bug or an unexpected bud valid behavior,
since we are dealing with conversions instead of coercions.
{{{
sage: K1=PolynomialRing(QQ, 't',10, order=TermOrder('degrevlex', 4) +
TermOrder('degrevlex', 6) )
sage: K2=PolynomialRing(ZZ, 't',10)
sage: [K2(f) for f in
On May 24, 9:37 pm, luisfe lftab...@yahoo.es wrote:
I am not sure if this is a bug or an unexpected bud valid behavior,
since we are dealing with conversions instead of coercions.
{{{
sage: K1=PolynomialRing(QQ, 't',10, order=TermOrder('degrevlex', 4) +
TermOrder('degrevlex', 6) )
sage
On Apr 7, 10:16 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi Rob,
On 7 Apr., 09:09, Rob Beezer goo...@beezer.cotse.net wrote:
As in many things, my personal feeling is that common sense and good
Cool, thanks!
--
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...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Could someone highlight why the following happens?
from a sage session, the names that can be imported from
sage.rings.integer_ring are:
{{{
EuclideanDomains Zfactor
is_IntegerRing
IntegerRing ZZ factorizationring
IntegerRing_class
The difference is with sage.all
$ sage -ipython
Python 2.6.4 (r264:75706, Jan 15 2011, 11:46:28)
Type copyright, credits or license for more information.
IPython 0.9.1 -- An enhanced Interactive Python.
? - Introduction and overview of IPython's features.
%quickref - Quick reference.
On Mar 1, 1:32 pm, Johan S. R. Nielsen j.s.r.niel...@mat.dtu.dk
wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:13 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
Nice! I weren't aware of this module. When you get a good idea,
there's a good chance that someone else thought of it before ;-) I
like the fact that
On Mar 1, 3:43 pm, Johan S. R. Nielsen j.s.r.niel...@mat.dtu.dk
wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:56 pm, luisfe lftab...@yahoo.es wrote:
No, the lazy_import object keeps wrapping the original object, but
when accessing the lazy_import object it imports the real object in
the namespace. So
On Mar 1, 10:13 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Johan S. R. Nielsen
See lazy-import. Doing this for everything may incur significant
delays the first time a function is called (rather than before the
prompt) and there are issues with
On 12 feb, 03:20, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 11, 2011, D. S. McNeil dsm...@gmail.com wrote:
I vote for changing the defn of sage rational gcd to match the
Pari/Mma/(Sage lcm+Maxima gcd) convention. Since +1 isn't having
the desired effect, I vote with my
On Feb 11, 10:49 am, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi,
On 11 Feb., 09:56, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Well, I had the impression that a couple of people are in favour of
the following:
gcd(a/b,c/d) := gcd(a,c)/lcm(b,d)
lcm(a/b,c/d) := lcm(a,c)/gcd(b,d)
It
On Feb 10, 3:19 pm, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi koffie,
Since QQ is a field, it is a principal ideal domain, where lcm and gcd
should have something to do with ideals. So, clearly lcm(4/1,2)=1.
It would be good to know what why lcm was written as it is right now.
--
To post
On Feb 10, 2:10 pm, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi Bruno
Let me phrase it like this: There are different interpretations of the
term consistent.
On the one hand, one could mean consistency with respect to sub-
structures: Let S be a sub-ring of a ring R; gcd_R is consistent
On Feb 9, 9:46 am, D. S. McNeil dsm...@gmail.com wrote:
(1) gcd is broken.http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10459
[..]
I'm personally OK either way with this.
IMO a*b = gcd(a,b)*lcm(a,b) should be maintained wherever possible.
There are pari codes whose direct Sage equivalent
On Feb 1, 3:41 am, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 01/30/11 03:27 PM, Jonathan wrote:
Put another way, there should be a discussion about what Sage needs, how
urgent
it is, and a plan drawn up.
I thought porting Sage to Windows via Cygwin was seen as important, as it
On Jan 14, 7:07 pm, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
For a discussion of practical fast polynomial multiplication,
seehttp://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/papers/dumbisfast.pdf
and also the first reference in that paper.
(As well as other references).
The code in GMP is likely to be well
On Jan 17, 12:16 am, Ben Linowitz benjamin.linow...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry about that. I was thinking of the number fields as being
subfields of C by definition. What if each of the number fields came
with a specified embedding into C?
Ben
I am not sure for the case of embeddings into C, I
I have rewritten the karatsuba algorithm for
Polynomial_generic_dense_field. The code needs some cleaning, but it
is already usable at #10255
My primary personal motivation is that, for number fields as base
rings, karatsuba performs worse than the generic multiplication. For
this concrete
On Dec 16, 6:32 pm, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi all!
On 15 Dez., 15:39, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
This is why I suggest the scenario the ring constructor prints a
warning if the variable name is not a string: QQ[x] or
PolynomialRing(QQ,[singular],1) would
On Dec 15, 8:35 am, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi!
My impression is that relatively often questions on sage-support are
about people accidentally mixing symbolics and polynomials. For
example
sage: z = var('z')
sage: R = QQ[z]
and then believing that z is the
On Dec 5, 6:15 pm, Iftikhar Burhanuddin burha...@math.ucla.edu
wrote:
Please explain the reason for the error. Is the number too big? If so what
is the range of integer computability?
Regards,
Ifti
sage: E = 2^(10^10)
The error explains,
RuntimeError: exponent must be at most 2147483647
On 3 dic, 20:49, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw
Apply foo.pyx, foo2.pyx
I mean of course foo.patch, foo2.patch :).
This will reset the patch list at that point, any added patches will
get (semi-intellegently)
On Dec 3, 7:54 pm, Niles nil...@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of the patches I've been working on are failing the new
automatic testing because some ticket attachments are being applied
that shouldn't be -- is there a way to fix this myself without
becoming a trac administrator?
+1 to this, that
On Nov 24, 10:34 pm, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi!
When defining a number field, it is optional to provide a canonical
embedding into the real lazy field.
If two number fields are defined by the same polynomial and the same
generator name, they are still considered different,
On Nov 25, 11:27 am, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi Luis!
On 25 Nov., 10:34, luisfe lftab...@yahoo.es wrote:
Suppose the following:
sage: K.r4 = NumberField(x^4-2)
sage: L1.r2_1 = NumberField(x^2-2, embedding = r4**2)
sage: L2.r2_2 = NumberField(x^2-2, embedding = -r4**2
On Nov 25, 1:53 pm, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi Luis,
With merging as I proposed in my previous post, one gets
sage: K.r4 = NumberField(x^4-2)
sage: L1.r2_1 = NumberField(x^2-2, embedding = r4**2)
sage: L2.r2_2 = NumberField(x^2-2, embedding = -r4**2)
sage: from
Hi Simon,
On 25 nov, 13:53, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Now I'm puzzled where the ERROR comes from.
I might be wrong, since coercion still looks magic like me. But it
seems that before trying pushout of the objects, Sage tries
L1.coerce_map_from(L2)
Now, it seems that, whenever
It is surely a bug, Sage does not compute the right factorization.
This is now #10279
--
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...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
On Nov 16, 12:28 pm, Niels niels.lub...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to compute the gcd of two bi-variate polynomials over a number
field:
sage: R = PolynomialRing( QQ, var( 't' ), order = 'lex' )
sage: t = R.gens()[0]
sage: T = NumberFieldTower( [t ** 2 - t + 1], 'a0' )
On Nov 15, 2:38 pm, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2010-11-15 13:53, Niels wrote:
Hi,
I think the following is a bug (only complete factorization after 2 steps):
Yes, it is a bug. The problem is with the upstream package PARI/GP.
Yes, it is a bug in pari. Note also
On Nov 15, 3:21 pm, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
According to Karim, one of these is now obsolete and should not be
used. But I can never remember which
John
According to the notes in:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7097
factornf uses Trager's trick and is
About this problem. Should one open a new ticket or reopen 7097 for
this problem?
--
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...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
On Nov 12, 9:17 am, Eviatar eviatarb...@gmail.com wrote:
Gah, it won't let me post links. Here it is in binary:
On Nov 11, 8:54 pm, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
However I disagree a little here about the degree of zero polynomial.
I would expect SylvesterMatrix(x^2, 0)
To be
[0 0]
[0 0]
Why do you expect that? What definition are you using for the Sylvester
Matrix?
Well, it
Hi,
I am trying to write a procedure for univariate and multivariate
polynomial rings that computes the Sylvester matrix of two
polynomials. But I have a problem with corner cases.
I am not sure what the method should resurn in the cases
poly1, poly2 = 0, 1
poly1, poly2 = 1, 0
poly1, poly2 = 0,
On Nov 11, 6:52 pm, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
The empty matrix is NOT the Sylvester matrix of (0,0), (0,1) or (1,0).
The degree of the zero polynomial is usually taken to be -infinity,
though Sage uses -1 for some reason. In either case, the Sylvester
matrix needs to have
On Oct 27, 8:36 pm, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net
wrote:
I've created an updated readline package to attempt to get a better solution
(less of a hack), to the issues on openSUSE 11.2, 11.3 and Arch Linux.
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/patches/readline-6.1.spkg
On Oct 28, 11:57 am, DuleOrlovic duleorlo...@gmail.com wrote:
I forget to add few more equations to system ie. {x^4-x,y^4-y,z^4-z}
in reason to have solution in GF(4) and zero dimensional ideal, so I
answered my question.
But, I have another issue.
When I use quotient ring Q,
On Oct 28, 5:25 pm, Roman Pearce rpear...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 28, 4:20 am, luisfe lftab...@yahoo.es wrote:
Computing with generic quotient rings I am afraid that will be slow
and that will yield to various errors. Specially as in this case,
where the ideal is not prime (you
There is a related bug in trac
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5155
I have posted there quepcad failures
--
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...@googlegroups.com
For more options,
On Sep 22, 12:28 am, Mitesh Patel qed...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/21/2010 07:57 AM, luisfe wrote:
Could you give the output of the qepcad.py test?
There is a related bug in trac:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5155
I have posted there quepcad failures
--
To post to this group, send
Hi,
I have recently upgraded my stable version of sage to 4.5.3 from
4.51 using
sage -upgrade
I upgraded sage with a user called Alice having write and read
access to the sources.
I have another user Bob that can only read the sources and run sage.
But Bob has no write permissions.
After
Hi,
I have recently upgraded my stable version of sage to 4.5.3 from
4.51 using
sage -upgrade
I upgraded sage with a user called Alice having write and read
access to the sources.
I have another user Bob that can only read the sources and run sage.
But Bob has no write permissions.
After
Debian 64-bit on an intel core-duo
compiles without problems and passes all doctests. The test wheree
made with only two threads.
--
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...@googlegroups.com
For
On Aug 28, 1:21 pm, Sebastian Pancratz s...@pancratz.org wrote:
On Aug 27, 1:00 pm, luisfe lftab...@yahoo.es wrote:
I have added a new ticket for adding a default gcd and lcm for field
elements.
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9819
For the case of field elements gcd and lcm
Another issue,
Assuming that we allow a fallback implementation of gcd/lcm for field
elements.
Do we want such gcd/lcm if the field is non-exact?
FractionField(RR[x]) and so on.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an
On Sep 1, 5:27 pm, Sebastian Pancratz s...@pancratz.org wrote:
I don't think this change in code should be used as a band-aid to make
things work in one of the trac tickets you mentioned earlier.
For the problem that raised all the stuff up I have an alternative
solution (with pros and cons
I have added a new ticket for adding a default gcd and lcm for field
elements.
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9819
For the case of field elements gcd and lcm methods are not of great
interest. However, they can be addecuated for some reasons.
- Some algorithms may accept as input
Hi,
I have found an unhandled SIGFPE in number_field_element_quadratic as
explained in ticket http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9357
Basically, sage does not check if a quadratic algebraic number is zero
when trying to invert it.
I added a trivial patch that checks if the zero element
Approximate GCD? That's a curious concept. What is it used for? I
can't imagine defining a GCD in this context as divisibility is an
exact phenomenon.
For example, in an inverse parametrization problem. Suppose that you
have a rational curve given by a parametrization with float
cofficients
I think that this is a problem inherent to the way that sage
communicates to maxima. And would be difficult to correct unless every
symbolic variable/function has a different maxima, pari etc. name that
does not cause this problem.
For example I would not like the following to be supported
sage:
Could not you use another way to use these subscripts. The following
may be ugly, but works
sage: n=var('n__0_3__0_1')
sage: maxima(n+1)
n__0_3__0_1+1
On 26 abr, 17:48, Ryan Hinton iob...@email.com wrote:
I'm using variable names with non-alphanumeric characters for
convenience. (Longer
On 17 mar, 10:13, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
For an example of how polynomials over number fields are converted
into pari polynomials, see
sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element.pyx, in the factor function.
This is the code already used to factor polynomials over number
sage: f1 = pari([i._pari_('y') for i in f.list()]).Pol()
well, this is use Polrev()
--
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...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
I have been recently working with univariate polynomials over number
fields and find the gcd very slow. At least for absolute number fields
Sage should behave better.
for QQ[x], gcd is also slow right now, but this is being addressed in
#4000
The issue is that for univariates polynomials over
Traceback (most recent call
last)
/home/luisfe/ipython console in module()
/opt/SAGE/sage/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/libs/pari/gen.so
in sage.libs.pari.gen.PariInstance.__call__ (sage/libs/pari/gen.c:
38930)()
/opt/SAGE/sage/local/lib/python2.6/site
/a)
---
AttributeErrorTraceback (most recent call
last)
/home/luisfe/.sage/temp/mychabol/4554/
_home_luisfe__sage_init_sage_0.py in module()
/opt/SAGE/sage/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/misc/
functional.pyc in numerator(x)
686
']
sage: f=x+y
sage: numerator(f)
---
AttributeErrorTraceback (most recent call
last)
/home/luisfe/.sage/temp/mychabol/5681/
_home_luisfe__sage_init_sage_0.py in
module()
/opt/SAGE/sage/local/lib
78 matches
Mail list logo
