> >I've been playing around with learning blender, with the idea of
> >animating some 4-D projection/rotations of polytopes into 3D. But all
> >I really want is a nice compressed animation/movie format, and it
> >seems like there should be a lighter-weight way to do that. If I come
> >up with a
>> >I've been playing around with learning blender, with the idea of
>> >animating some 4-D projection/rotations of polytopes into 3D. But all
>> >I really want is a nice compressed animation/movie format, and it
>> >seems like there should be a lighter-weight way to do that. If I come
>> >up wi
> >So, to return to Sage : it should be quite doable to have one plot3d
> >format be povray source-code, to be compiled separately (or which gets
> >compiled in the background). That's not at all real-time, so I'm not
> >sure it fits the original purpose, but it certainly can produce a movie
> >(i
2008/9/1 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> this is a followup to the above thread. Mike Hansen wrote a doctest
> for gp.py and we hit the following problem:
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/interfaces/gp.py
> **
> File "/Users/m
On Monday 01 September 2008, mabshoff wrote:
> On Aug 31, 4:33 pm, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > On Sunday 31 August 2008, John Cremona wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi there, that means that I screwed up 32-bit compatibility. I'll look
> > into it tomorrow.
>
> This is now #4027.
>
> Not
On Sep 1, 11:05 am, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would seem that ray tracing should be a fully parallel task.
Yes, it is, but multicore isn't the issue I think. Images can be split
up into smaller rectangles (i.e. rendering a single image by 4 cores
in parallel by splitting it into a 2x
One possible source of confusion here is that pari's (and gp's)
precision parameters refer to numbers of decimal digits, while Sage's
(as in RealField(prec)) refer to bits. The first is about 0.301 times
the second, i.e. log_10(2). Moreover, pari only increases its
precision in steps of between
Thanks Vincent for the information. One reason I am choosing not to
use povray is the license, which I believe is not compatible with
inclusion in Sage.
Btw, the tachyon raytracer does seem to have good multicore support dy
default. Unfortunately it cannot animate. I wish we had someone who
c
I have just glimpsed over the code. But maybe it is worth stating in
the comments, that the reduce impl. only returns unqiue answer against
strong Gröbner basis.
Gröbner basis G of I <=> the leading ideal of G generates all leading
terms of I
strong % of I <=> for every leading term t of I there
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Vincent Beffara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >So, to return to Sage : it should be quite doable to have one plot3d
>> >format be povray source-code, to be compiled separately (or which gets
>> >compiled in the background). That's not at all real-time, so I'm not
Thank you Oliver for looking over this code. I'll add the documentation as
suggested.
Cheers,
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
_jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~--
Much better for me. Thanks a lot for the changes.
Maybe for aesthetic reasons, I would choose a darker blue for
highlighted
code with in the blue blocks. (like on the new line 772 in John's
example).
But that has nothing to do with colour-blindness.
> there are blocks of code which are eith
> Thanks Vincent for the information. One reason I am choosing not to
> use povray is the license, which I believe is not compatible with
> inclusion in Sage.
Ah. I didn't know about the license, I had a look and indeed it is not
quite free enough. BTW I am not pushing povray as such, simply sa
> I also find it frustrating that both "prec" and "precision" are used
> as standard parameter names for either scale of precision all over the
> place. It would be nice to standardise this. And in addition, I
> propose a convention that we only use "prec" or "precision" to denote
> bit precisio
Mike,
Before I reply to your email, let me ask a simple question about sage
as installed on sage.math. When I try the axiom interface there I get:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sage
--
| SAGE Version 3.1, Release Date: 2008-08-16
From the discussion in sage-support (which I mistook for sage-devel).
On 02/09/2008, at 6:22, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * sets and matrices not distinguished from lists
Mathematica's attributes are something I will miss in Sage. (They are
a partial fix for some of the probl
I was looking at the What's new document
for Python 2.6:
http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/2.6.html
and I was wondering what the plans are
for migrating to it and if there aren't plans
maybe it is time to start considering them.
It appears that it will have number of
useful features such as m
On Sep 1, 4:18 pm, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> I was looking at the What's new document
> for Python 2.6:
>
> http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/2.6.html
>
> and I was wondering what the plans are
> for migrating to it and if there aren't plans
> maybe it is time to start conside
18 matches
Mail list logo
