Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com writes:
On 03/01/12 23:43, Keshav Kini wrote:
I don't understand. Why would it be *faster* to do version bumps if
sage-on-gentoo gets into Gentoo proper? Overlays are always more nimble
than the Gentoo tree, as far as I can see.
If we're to distribute
On Saturday, March 3, 2012 11:02:39 AM UTC-8, kcrisman wrote:
...
Has anyone ever done a natural-language frontend attempt to Maxima or
its predecessors? I would be surprised if someone hadn't, to be
honest.
I am unaware of any natural language front end to Macsyma or Maxima,
at
Is anyone from Zurich going? (I am trying to)
Paul
On Friday, March 2, 2012 8:33:22 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
Bringing this back to the actual subject of the thread...
See
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12619
The developer has the following followup too.
Login into
I thing this natural language input idea is not particularly
proven here. Why would it be easier for a user to learn to type
perfectly
formed English (or other natural language) inputs instead of math?
You should see what is done if the natural language input has
unexpected forms in it.
But,
On 3/3/12 9:08 AM, rjf wrote:
I thing this natural language input idea is not particularly
proven here. Why would it be easier for a user to learn to type
perfectly
formed English (or other natural language) inputs instead of math?
I think the point is that prospective users of Sage have
On Mar 3, 10:08 am, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
I thing this natural language input idea is not particularly
proven here. Why would it be easier for a user to learn to type
perfectly
formed English (or other natural language) inputs instead of math?
Presumably a first step? But you'd
On 03/01/12 23:43, Keshav Kini wrote:
I don't understand. Why would it be *faster* to do version bumps if
sage-on-gentoo gets into Gentoo proper? Overlays are always more nimble
than the Gentoo tree, as far as I can see.
If we're to distribute sage via source, we need some way for users to
Bringing this back to the actual subject of the thread...
See
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12619
The developer has the following followup too.
Login into localhost at port 9000
waiting... EmptyBlock 2
finished handshake. Session id is 9b9c68446cc2caf65e14d5078ac9eedd
sage
On Feb 29, 8:46 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 2/29/12 5:31 PM, mmarco wrote:
So, returning to the original subject. Would it be ok to have this
natural language interface, say, as an optional package? Or as someone
suggested, to have it in some experimental
On Mar 1, 9:43 am, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 29, 8:46 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 2/29/12 5:31 PM, mmarco wrote:
So, returning to the original subject. Would it be ok to have this
natural language interface, say, as an optional package? Or as
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible what
is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
Put simple: Sage is turing complete, a video editor (office package [*],
or whatever) is not.
Le jeudi 01 mars, Harald Schilly a écrit:
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible
what
is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages?
Put simple: Sage is turing complete, a video
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net wrote:
Le jeudi 01 mars, Harald Schilly a écrit:
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:01:46 AM UTC+1, Snark wrote:
Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible
what
is possible for other complex
On 03/01/2012 04:00 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
I'm sorry, but I still fail to see how situation :
sage contains all its deps (even if they're already there)
will be any better for subtle bugs than situation :
sage has the same deps, but doesn't manage them itself more than by
On 03/01/2012 04:52 PM, William Stein wrote:
I'm sorry, but I still fail to see how situation :
sage contains all its deps (even if they're already there)
will be any better for subtle bugs than situation :
sage has the same deps, but doesn't manage them itself more than by
declaring
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net
wrote:
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in Sage
without including the
Does this library also include speech recognition? :)
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:55:47 AM UTC, mmarco wrote:
Take a look at this:
http://www.molto-project.eu/node/1412
It is a library that can translate natural language sentences to sage
commands. I haven't tested it, but the
On Feb 29, 6:55 am, mmarco mma...@unizar.es wrote:
Take a look at this:http://www.molto-project.eu/node/1412
It is a library that can translate natural language sentences to sage
commands. I haven't tested it, but the examples they show sound
impressive:
sage compute the product of the
On 2/29/12 5:55 AM, mmarco wrote:
Has somebody tested it?
Do you think it would be worth the effort of including this in sage? I
think that, for example, having an option in the notebook to enter
commands in natural language would be a killer feature (assuming it
works fine).
Never heard of
Dear Prof. Saludes,
This email is cc:ed to the official Sage developer list, which we
welcome you to join at sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Appended see some
of the very positive reaction to your MOLTO project to give Sage
natural language interface.
I have at least one question, though.
What is the issue with haskell? Its license?
On Feb 29, 6:33 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:55 AM, mmarco mma...@unizar.es wrote:
Take a look at this:
http://www.molto-project.eu/node/1412
It is a library that can translate natural language sentences to
On 2/29/12 12:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM, mmarcomma...@unizar.es wrote:
What is the issue with haskell? Its license?
Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in Sage
without including the Haskell compiler (buildable from source) in
Sage.
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in Sage
without including the Haskell compiler (buildable from source) in
Sage. And there's no way we're doing that. We already have to deal
with too many different programming
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net wrote:
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in Sage
without including the Haskell compiler (buildable from source) in
Sage. And there's no way we're
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Julien Puydt
julien.pu...@laposte.net wrote:
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
Licenses aren't the issue. We can't include a Haskell program in
Sage without including the Haskell compiler
Hi
On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net wrote:
If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then
there would be a gain too. Let me stress again : I have some of the
things it needs already, so it could just use it.
I was under the impression...
Le mercredi 29 février, Jan Groenewald a écrit:
Hi
On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net
wrote:
If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then
there would be a gain too. Let me stress again : I have some of the
things it needs already,
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net wrote:
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Julien Puydt
julien.pu...@laposte.net wrote:
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
Licenses aren't the issue. We can't
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jan Groenewald j...@aims.ac.za wrote:
Hi
On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net wrote:
If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then
there would be a gain too. Let me stress again : I have some of the
things
Hi
On 29 February 2012 23:35, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jan Groenewald j...@aims.ac.za wrote:
Hi
On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net
wrote:
If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
Even if Sage didn't include Python (say), we would still have to worry
about it as a dependency, and big would be replaced by sage has too
many dependencies.
I tought I had insisted enough : the spkg would still be there,
ready to be used. It
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:01:46 PM UTC-8, Snark wrote:
Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit:
(1) when you want to apply a theorem, do you just check for the
hypotheses then go on, or do you re-do the proof down from the
axioms?
Neither. This is a false analogy.
So, returning to the original subject. Would it be ok to have this
natural language interface, say, as an optional package? Or as someone
suggested, to have it in some experimental server?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
Em 29 de fevereiro de 2012 19:24, Julien Puydt
julien.pu...@laposte.net escreveu:
Le mercredi 29 février, Jan Groenewald a écrit:
Hi
On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net
wrote:
If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then
there would be
On 2/29/12 5:31 PM, mmarco wrote:
So, returning to the original subject. Would it be ok to have this
natural language interface, say, as an optional package? Or as someone
suggested, to have it in some experimental server?
Yes! And Yes! Please, go for it!
Jason
--
To post to this group,
35 matches
Mail list logo
