On 12/ 8/10 06:28 PM, rjf wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:01 am, David Kirkbydavid.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear from Wolfram Research on the use of Wolfram
Alpha for this.
Why would they bother to reply?
Because it would be courteous to do so. They did reply - see my post.
On Dec 6, 8:01 am, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
This presupposes that people of fairly high mathematical knowledge are
good at writing software.
I'm yet to be convinced that having a PhD in maths, or studying for
one, makes you good at writing software tests
I quite agree.
On Dec 6, 11:15 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
I agree, people of all backgrounds can make significant contributions.
Logically, nothing to argue with
There may be a person X of {no particular specified background} who
can make a significant contribution
I think we
And why should anyone care? Do you think that Wolfram Alpha will last
longer than Mathematica?
I think the point was that not everyone who might want to do this
would have access to Mma, but that (for now) they would all have
access to W|A. Just to clarify - I don't really have a horse in
On Dec 8, 10:45 am, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
And why should anyone care? Do you think that Wolfram Alpha will last
longer than Mathematica?
I think the point was that not everyone who might want to do this
would have access to Mma, but that (for now) they would all have
access
On 8 December 2010 23:31, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:45 am, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
And why should anyone care? Do you think that Wolfram Alpha will last
longer than Mathematica?
That's such a stupid question, I'm not going to answer it.
I think the point was
On Dec 6, 11:15 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:01 AM, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 4 December 2010 05:32, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:40 PM, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net
wrote:
On the topic of verifying tests, I think internal consistency checks
are much better, both pedagogically and for verifiability, than
external checks against other (perhaps inaccessible) systems. For
example, the statement above that checks a power series against its
definition and properties,
I suggested 'nose' was added a long time ago
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/928632...
the only person to reply (Robert Bradshaw) disagreed.
I think there's a distinction between an spkg that people might find
useful to use with Sage, and an spkg that's
On 12/2/10 12:42 PM, kcrisman wrote:
That said, maybe 'easy_install' is really as easy as ./sage -i nose
from the internet, in which case I suppose one could have an spkg-
check that relied on the internet... but that wouldn't be ideal, I
think.
But that would also prevent yet another spkg to
On Dec 2, 10:20 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
On the topic of verifying tests, I think internal consistency checks
are much better, both pedagogically and for verifiability, than
external checks against other (perhaps inaccessible) systems. For
example, the statement
On Dec 2, 1:46 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 12/2/10 12:42 PM, kcrisman wrote:
That said, maybe 'easy_install' is really as easy as ./sage -i nose
from the internet, in which case I suppose one could have an spkg-
check that relied on the internet... but that
To follow up my own thing, maybe it would be possible to write a spkg-
check that tries to detect nose, exits gracefully if it's not there,
and otherwise uses a system nose... though of course then one would be
using the system Python... wouldn't one?
- kcrisman
--
To post to this group, send
But let's not make Sage too much more bureaucratic. If anything, it's
already too bureaucratic. I personally can hardly stand to submit
anything to Sage anymore because of this.
:(
I do think it would be good to start using nosetest
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
But let's not make Sage too much more bureaucratic. If anything, it's
already too bureaucratic. I personally can hardly stand to submit
anything to Sage anymore because of this.
:(
I do think it would be good to start
On Dec 2, 11:36 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:25 PM, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
Verifying correctness of tests is not a waste of time.
I don't know what the current coverage is, but lets say for argument
it needs another 1000 tests to
On Dec 1, 11:25 pm, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
I rather suspect the input, which shows how to use the taylor
function, could be any of numerous inputs. The one chosen
sage: taylor(gamma(1/3+x),x,0,3)
gives a huge output which is going to be next to impossible to verify
On Dec 1, 5:30 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
But let's not make Sage too much more bureaucratic. If anything, it's
already too bureaucratic. I personally can hardly stand to submit
anything to Sage anymore
18 matches
Mail list logo
