That kind of feature (easily modify Sage for users) has been proposed
before and I think think it will be reasonably easy to implement once we
have switched to git. Right now the whole patch creation process requires
too many manual steps that would have to be automatized (like dependency
track
So, let me rephrase the question: do you think it could be reasonably
simple to implement?
It can cause some issues (think for example in multi-user servers), but
anyways i think we could give it a try as an optional feature.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
On Monday, September 2, 2013 10:46:24 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> On 2013-09-03, rjf > wrote:
> > Octave, Maxima, Sage
> > vs
> > Matlab, Mathematica, Magma
> >
> > It seems that people want professionally supported products
> > (whatever that might turn out to be, in reality).
On 2013-08-31 12:54, mmarco wrote:
Do you think it could be a feature that people could appreciate?
I think it's obvious that the answer is "yes", especially combined with
the same feature for *reviewing* a patch.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"s
On 2013-09-03, rjf wrote:
> Octave, Maxima, Sage
> vs
> Matlab, Mathematica, Magma
>
> It seems that people want professionally supported products
> (whatever that might turn out to be, in reality). And they do not
> care so much about open source.
Who do you mean by "people"? These who have
Octave, Maxima, Sage
vs
Matlab, Mathematica, Magma
It seems that people want professionally supported products
(whatever that might turn out to be, in reality). And they do not
care so much about open source.
RJF
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou
On 8/31/13 5:14 AM, Dumont Thierry wrote:
It is not very easy to make people swith from matlab to python (and thus
Sage) tools in numerics... Matlab is turning very expensive for rasearch
institutions, but:
-1) People are really addict to matlab,
2) There are matlab alternatives with a matl
About the importance of being free software (or more precisely: te
perception of it being important for the users), i thought about the
possibility to make easier for the user to modify its own version of sage.
Not that it is hard (for people with some knowledge on software
development) as it i
Le 30/08/2013 22:46, Jason Grout a écrit :
On 8/30/13 3:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
True regarding Matlab -- in fact, it is already very hard for the
scientific python community to get traction against Matlab at the
University level, though I'm very impressed with the progress they
have made so
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 8/30/13 3:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> True regarding Matlab -- in fact, it is already very hard for the
>> scientific python community to get traction against Matlab at the
>> University level, though I'm very impressed with the progres
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 8/30/13 3:35 PM, David Joyner wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:44 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> My 2 cents:
>> Magma is losing customers left and right and IMHO this will have little
>> impact.
>> You know more than I do about
On 8/30/13 3:35 PM, David Joyner wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:44 PM, William Stein wrote:
My 2 cents:
Magma is losing customers left and right and IMHO this will have little impact.
You know more than I do about this, but my feeling is the number
of people who need Magma vs Sage is gett
On 8/30/13 3:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
True regarding Matlab -- in fact, it is already very hard for the
scientific python community to get traction against Matlab at the
University level, though I'm very impressed with the progress they
have made so far. And since we're talking about founda
On Apr 19, 2:47 pm, John Cremona 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 unsubscribe from this gr
On Jan 15, 2008 7:24 AM, Kiran Kedlaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In Magma, many commands return multiple values, for instance:
>
> sage: %magma
> magma: XGCD(15, 10)
> 5 1 -1
>
> However, the following happens in SAGE:
>
> sage: magma.XGCD(15, 10)
> 5
>
> Is there a good way for the Magma int
I do not see much about the cultural aspect of these systems and I
think that the cultural aspects seem very interesting. I would like to
know why MATLAB is so popular in engineering and not Mathematica. Also
could you tell us about how SAGE is so much better than Mathematica
for teaching your ele
On May 17, 2007, at 10:13 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wrote slides just now for a culturally and historically
> oriented introduction to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
> MATLAB, and SAGE. If you want, please take a look at
> them and give me any feedback you might have:
>
> http://sage
I have tried your examples and I get expected resuts back (i.e., not
the ones you are listing here)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more opti
I think I finally found the faster algorithm. It's just plain
Schoenhage-Strassen, but with a so called sqrt 2 trick.
Basically, if you want to do a multiplication for polynomials of degree
<= 2^l, you need to do a 2^l point FFT, which means you need to work in
a ring that has 2^l roots of unity.
On Oct 23, 2006, at 10:43 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> At one stage MAGMA were boasting that their integer multiplication was
> a lot faster than GMP, but I suspect GMP has caught them up now, and I
> think it only made a difference to numbers of a million bits or more.
> MAGMA now seem to claim that
Bill Hart wrote:
> This page apparently answers the question definitively:
>
> http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/Features/node93.html
And this paper tells me exactly what I want to know:
http://www.mathematik.hu-berlin.de/~gaggle/EVENTS/2006/BRENT60/presentations/Allan%20Steel%20-%20Reduce%2
This page apparently answers the question definitively:
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/Features/node93.html
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
William Stein wrote:
> I wonder why they switched from that faster algorithm to a slower one?
> Maybe it produced incorrect results (possibly due to rounding errors)?
I doubt they did. On their website there is no mention in their
changelogs of any change in the algorithm for multiplication of
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:23:00 -0500, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only thing I'm aware of is the bit-operations I mentioned in an
>> earlier email about his SSMul function.
>
> The thing that really sux is that earlier version of MAGMA computes the
> whole product in less time than N
On Oct 22, 2006, at 6:32 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> I am now absolutely certain MAGMA uses the FFT for multiplying
> polynomials over ZZ right down to degree 16 (when the bit length is
> 1000). This is a **much** lower cutoff than NTL uses, which is
> indicative of the fact that MAGMA's FFT is way b
David Harvey wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2006, at 6:32 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> > I am now absolutely certain MAGMA uses the FFT for multiplying
> > polynomials over ZZ right down to degree 16 (when the bit length is
> > 1000). This is a **much** lower cutoff than NTL uses, which is
> > indicative of the
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:05:52 -0700, Page, Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Incidentally, SAGE already has a useful shorthand for the
>> above:
>>
>> sage: x = polygen(ZZ)
>> sage: parent(x)
>> Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Integer Ring
>>
>
> I think you need to define the semantics ver
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:02:18 -0700, William Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see that you can write programs and then have them
> turned into C code, via Pyrex, and then compiled
> anyway. That is going to be a big drawcard. Pari has
> had such an
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:23:34 -0700, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:12:04 -0700, William Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >> > 1) Having to set up a ring just to write down a
>> >> > polynomial.
>> >>
>> >> SAGE and Singular and Macaulay
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:37:41 -0700, William Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like SAGE already supports:
>
> R = ZZ['x,y,z']
>
> Now this I like! Mathematicians will certainly like
> that, since it makes sense. No polgen, Integers(), or
> nonsense syntax to remember.
Cool. I'm glad yo
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:11:25 -0700, William Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> All three of the examples you give above would be
>> illegal in most
>> programming languages, including Python.
>
> Well, one could surely use:
>
> indet x, y, z;
>
> similar to how variables are defined in C. I suppos
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:16:30 -0700, William Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even something like:
>
> declare(x);
>
> or
>
> local(x);
>
> or
>
> indet(x);
>
> would be better. To declare it as an
> indeterminate/symbol/whatchamacallit.
All three of the examples you give above would be illegal
William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:12:04 -0700, William Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > 1) Having to set up a ring just to write down a
> >> > polynomial.
> >>
> >> SAGE and Singular and Macaulay2 also have this
> >> property.
> >> Any suggestions on how it might be done otherwi
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:12:04 -0700, William Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > 1) Having to set up a ring just to write down a
>> > polynomial.
>>
>> SAGE and Singular and Macaulay2 also have this
>> property.
>> Any suggestions on how it might be done otherwise?
>
> Pol(x^41+x^32+2*x^12-1) seem
34 matches
Mail list logo
