Thanks for your report! I simplified a bit your example and posted an issue
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37927.
Vincent
Le vendredi 3 mai 2024 à 15:05:03 UTC+2, Hakan Granath a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I think sometimes matrices over QQbar give erroneous results (sorry for
> the messy
>From the answers to that thread, it seems that rule
(R0) The parent of a / b should only depend on the parents
of a and b.
has to be strict (7 people for and 2 vaguely against). The two
main reasons are consistency accross the different Sage rings
and the fact that coercion relies
n self._gdbval.dereference()[name]
gdb.error: There is no member named ob_sval.
Le samedi 30 décembre 2017 11:08:09 UTC+1, vdelecroix a écrit :
>
> Here it is
>
> On 05/10/2017 13:18, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> > Anybody has a complete backtrace, preferably with GDB installed?
>
Hi Eric,
Currently at a workshop in Leiden [1] we figured out one another possible
use case for your proposal. Some people does develop PARI/GP in parallel of
Sage. One simple way to have a testing environment would be to have:
* a git repo for PARI/GP
* a git repo for SAGE
* telling SAGE to
Le dimanche 23 octobre 2016 16:20:25 UTC+2, John Cremona a écrit :
>
> I see that despite the title of that ticket, this is (at present)
> about r%n when r =p/q is rational.
>
The ticket also cares about the case where n is rational. Moreover my
proposed branch makes % part of the coercion
Le mardi 22 décembre 2015 01:31:23 UTC+2, vdelecroix a écrit :
>
> Hello,
>
> While responding to this ask question
>
> http://ask.sagemath.org/question/31740/why-112321-and-111320
>
> I discovered some inconsistencies with the modulo operators in Sage. We
> i
Hi,
I am not able to connect to ask.sagemath.org. I was using the service which
becomes suddenly unavailable (around 1:30pm GMT).
Vincent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
Here is a Sage argument in favor of right action: vectors are row vectors
in Sage (on which matrices act on right). There has been a choice to
silently ignore transposition and we can write vA or Av in Sage... but
still the natural way to do it is through right action (if we do it the
other
Le dimanche 7 juillet 2013 22:06:12 UTC+1, Paul Mercat a écrit :
As it's recommanded, I give here the error I get when I try to compile
sage 5.10 on my MacBook pro :
ld: library not found for -lpng
The problem comes from the fact that there should be a library libpng
somewhere but the
Hi,
I do like the project find_stat but do not like the way it intends to do
it. In that sense, I mostly agree with Nathann objections.
Following Thierry, why combinatorial maps are not implemented as morphisms
between two proper parents ? We could add some semantic to morphisms
If we allow an UTF-8 banner then we may also allow UTF-8 string
representations for Sage objects (why not?). But I think we do not want to
force the user to have UTF-8 output because it is always harder to parse an
UTF-8 string than an ASCII string (this argument is also valid for the Sage
Le lundi 8 juillet 2013 13:32:11 UTC+1, Jan Groenewald a écrit :
notebook() launches in firefox (my preferred browser on ubuntu 12.04).
tutorial() launches in chromium, why is that? Trying to do a from-source
install
so that I can look at the code.
You do not need to install from source to
Actually, the version of libpng the compiler should use is not the one
which you just installed but the one which is shipped with sage (ie
$SAGE_ROOT/local/lib/libpng*)... It looks like a problem of compiler
options but I have no clue of how to solve this and it is quite strange
that it fails
Hi,
Cool! It looks nice. How do you intend to define a manifold: numerically
(via fine triangulations) or via symbolic expressions? Both?
Are you aware of #9439 (hyperbolic geometry) and #10132 (surfaces embedded
in R^3) which are somewhat related?
Best,
Vincent
--
You received this message
Le samedi 6 juillet 2013 13:22:51 UTC+2, Harald Schilly a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 12:08 AM, vdelecroix
20100.d...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Should I open a global ticket for all these broken links ?
yes, i think that's the best idea.
and i likely found the correct one
Hi,
I found various broken urls [1] in the documentation and I guess that there
are much more. It would be nice if there was an automatic procedure to
check if the urls are valid. I would be happy to help but I do not know
precisely how to
- parse all urls in the documentation (I guess that
Try:
sage --docbuild reference linkcheck
According to the Sphinx documentation, that should check all external
links in the reference manual.
(See http://sphinx-doc.org/invocation.html.)
Thanks John! I tried and get
http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~delecroix/reference-linkcheck.rst, ie
If the differential forms are somewhat immutable we may also save the
result of is_zero once for all. Why do not make is_zero a cached_method of
symbolic expressions ?
Best,
Vincent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe
On May 19, 4:50 pm, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Floating-point and numerically unstable formula just don't mix. Sure,
working with RIF makes it much harder to get something that is plainly
wrong, but you can still construct quickly-varying functions where it will
give you the
On 19 mai, 03:36, leif not.rea...@online.de wrote:
vdelecroix wrote:
In an attempt to improve #14567, I found the following thing (which
for me is a bug). Consider the different real fields with rounding
RNDD or RNDU. Then -pi is systematically wrongly approximated.
AFAIK that's
Sorry, the first block of examples should be replaced with
{{{
sage: a = (106*pi - 333) / (355 - 113*pi)
sage: a.n(digits=5)
Traceback (most recent call last)
...
ValueError: power::eval(): division by zero
sage: a.n(digits=6)
289.000
sage: a.n(digits=7)
289.
sage: a.n(digits=8)
293.65079
On 19 mai, 11:52, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:36:18 AM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
If we want to round down the
expression - expr then we should round up expr and then take the
opposite.
If you care about errors then you should be evaluating
On 19 mai, 12:34, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
For starters, most of the plotting stuff will rely on quickly computing
numerical approximations to symbolic expressions. There you certainly don't
want to start refining the RIF precision iteratively if you hit a
numerically unstable
Hi,
Because of #14568 some output of the tests in
sage.tests.book_stein_ent changed. As they are the doctest of some
book I wonder if there is something specific to do in that case ?
Best,
Vincent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
Hi William,
Because of #14568 some output of the tests in
sage.tests.book_stein_ent changed. As they are the doctest of some
book I wonder if there is something specific to do in that case ?
No, the convention is just to make appropriate changes to the output
as usual. This has
Hi,
In an attempt to improve #14567, I found the following thing (which
for me is a bug). Consider the different real fields with rounding
RNDD or RNDU. Then -pi is systematically wrongly approximated.
The given input
{{{
a = -pi
for rnd in 'RNDD','RNDU','RNDZ':
R = RealField(15,rnd=rnd)
Hi,
In [1], I mention that sage-clone does recompile Cython files. But the
operation sage-clone still takes a lot of time because of
documentation regeneration. Is there a way to avoid this documentation
regeneration ?
Best,
Vincent
[1]
For the impatient, the following at least avoids rebuilding of (most of
the) Cython-generated files:
Thanks leif, it works quite well on sage-5.9. Do you have an idea for
avoiding documentation regeneration (see [1]) ?
Best,
Vincent
[1]
Hi,
It seems that the behavior of sage -clone changes around the version 5.9.
I freshly compiled a version of 5.10.beta2 and when I do a clone it
recompiles the wholse sage sources (but hopefully not the auxilliary spkg).
The first line in the log of sage -clone which differs from previous
Hi,
Let K be a quadratic number field (let say K = QuadraticField(2)).
There are natural morphisms implemented in Cython from ZZ to QQ and
from QQ to K. There is also an other way, somewhat more direct, to go
from ZZ to K. But at the end it is 10 times faster to go the first way
and Sage does not
.
This is now #14563.
Vincent
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, vdelecroix 20100.d...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Hi,
Let K be a quadratic number field (let say K = QuadraticField(2)).
There are natural morphisms implemented in Cython from ZZ to QQ and
from QQ to K. There is also an other way
Hi,
I am working on #10962 about pickling of Set_PythonType (in sage/
structure/parent.pyx). I added a fast check in the constructor to
verifies that the argument is a type 'type' and not something
else... it causes two errors. The first one occurs in sage/schemes as
in
{{{
sage: P2.x,y,z =
Hi Simon,
Thanks for your answer.
And the second errors occurs with the symbolic ring (example from
doctest)
{{{
sage: t = log(2)
sage: u = t.maxima_methods()
sage: SR(u)
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
TypeError: Set_PythonType must be initialized with a type, not
Hi Nicolas, Hi David,
Thanks for your answers.
I'll check this out tomorrow, but I suspect I simply screwed up this
use case. Unless there is a patch in the Sage-Combinat queue touching
those lines, I guess you are just the first one hitting it! The tuple
should be converted to a category
Hi Nicolas, Hi David,
Thanks for your answers.
I'll check this out tomorrow, but I suspect I simply screwed up this
use case. Unless there is a patch in the Sage-Combinat queue touching
those lines, I guess you are just the first one hitting it! The tuple
should be converted to a category
Hi,
The question [1] from ask.sagemath.org seems to be related to a
coercion bug. I copy/paste the example here
{{{
sage: K2.s2 =NumberField(x^3 - 2, 's2', embedding=CC(-0.63,1.09))
sage: CIF.coerce_map_from(K)
Composite map:
From: Number Field in s2 with defining polynomial x^3 - 2
To:
Hello,
In the following thread [1], was mentioned a problem with computation
of eigenvectors for matrices over number field. I get a similar bug
with sage-5.0 where sage answers a *wrong* eigenvector.
Let's take a simple example
{{{
sage: K.c = NumberField(x^2-x-1,'c',embedding=RR(1+sqrt(5))/2)
Hello,
There is a nice code for computing Farey symbols of arithmetic groups
(see [1] and [2]). My question is about implementation. There are
basically two ways of describing a subgroup of SL(2,Z). Either by
providing a membership test (ie a __contains__ method) or by giving a
Shreier graph for
Hi,
I found a weird behavior with the symbolic ring (on sage-5.0)
{{{
sage: E = cot(x) == cos(x) / sin(x)
sage: bool(E)
True
sage: F = E.substitute(x=pi/8)
sage: bool(F)
False
}}}
Does anybody know where does it come from?
Cheers,
Vincent
--
--
To post to this group, send an email to
Hi,
Once I initialize a number field with a real embedding, I would like
(as a user) that the order defined on the number field (ie the answers
of comparisons) is the one induced from RR. This is not the case right
now. I started to implement the thing for quadratic number field, and
it works
40 matches
Mail list logo
