I would advocate that RLF is a very good approximation of what should
be RR. Perhaps one good direction to take is to try to make RLF
smarter and contains all constants from pi to cos(42^e).
Somehow, it already does (i.e. internally it keeps track of their
symbollic nature):
{{{
2014-03-14 10:45 UTC+01:00, mmarco mma...@unizar.es:
I would advocate that RLF is a very good approximation of what should
be RR. Perhaps one good direction to take is to try to make RLF
smarter and contains all constants from pi to cos(42^e).
Somehow, it already does (i.e. internally it
This is half good, I am happy that RLF wraps symbolic constants. But,
first of all there can not be any reasonable coercion from SR to RLF
as SR is much bigger. Secondly, SR is not consistent with evaluation
sage: cos(1.).parent()
Real Field with 53 bits of precision
sage:
I reproduced the problem and finally narrowed the issue:
* bzip2 only produces a static lib,
* freetype 2.3.5 which we used to ship did not use bz2, whereas freetype
2.5.2 does.
* libtool refuses to put the static lib within the shared one (on Cygwin,
no problem on Linux).
On Friday, March 14,
2014-03-14 14:24 UTC+01:00, mmarco mma...@unizar.es:
This is half good, I am happy that RLF wraps symbolic constants. But,
first of all there can not be any reasonable coercion from SR to RLF
as SR is much bigger. Secondly, SR is not consistent with evaluation
sage: cos(1.).parent()
Real
Any number cos(rational x pi) is algebraic and equality of algebraic
numbers is decidable. Moreover, it is not because something is
undecidable that Sage should return a wrong answer. In that case, it
would be good to have a third party in comparison (either returning
Unknown or
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Martin Albrecht wrote:
what happened to the Sage 2012 GSoC project on lattices described here:
http://gsoc-sage-lattices.blogspot.co.uk/
I don't know. But anyways, contact Nathan Lawless if you are going to do
something with lattices.
Sage way to generate
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:53:53 PM UTC-4, Volker Braun wrote:
We restored the prereq tests, so that is probably the change. You can set
SAGE_PORT=yes and see how far you get...
Right, Anne set it to True, not yes. But shouldn't anything nonempty
work? So probably she needs to move
So would a solution be to somehow roll back my version of freetype then? Or
would a more aggressive patch be required?
On Friday, March 14, 2014 8:30:50 AM UTC-5, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
I reproduced the problem and finally narrowed the issue:
* bzip2 only produces a static lib,
* freetype
On Friday, March 14, 2014 4:57:33 PM UTC+1, Evan Oman wrote:
So would a solution be to somehow roll back my version of freetype then?
Or would a more aggressive patch be required?
That should work unless something in Sage explicitely relies on new
features of freetype (if there are any).
Alright I found an old version of freetype in a spkg on here,
http://www.filewatcher.com/m/freetype-2.3.5.p4.spkg.1300660-0.htmlinstalled
it, and the build continued and installed pillow successfully.
After successfully installing several other components I got a build fail
with this message
Hi,
I am not sure this is relevant to what I'd like to do:
I want a Lattice class for discrete subgroups of RR^n (I only care about
integer lattices actually) where i can do stuff like:
- sampling elements
- lattice reduction
- finding shortest vectors
- solving the closest vector problem
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 8:09:58 AM UTC-7, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
Greetings, Sage Ones,
Some of you may have already seen this, but I've started working on a
draft PEP for adding a dedicated operator for matrix multiplication to
Python
I've seen many examples of complicated matrix
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 8:09:58 AM UTC-7, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
Greetings, Sage Ones,
Some of you may have already seen this, but I've started working on a
draft PEP for adding a dedicated operator for matrix multiplication
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM, David Roe r...@math.harvard.edu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 8:09:58 AM UTC-7, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
Greetings, Sage Ones,
Some of you may have already seen this, but I've started
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 8:09:58 AM UTC-7, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
Greetings, Sage Ones,
Some of you may have already seen this, but I've started working on a
draft PEP for adding a dedicated operator for matrix multiplication
On 2014-03-14, Evan Oman evan...@gmail.com wrote:
Alright I found an old version of freetype in a spkg on here,
http://www.filewatcher.com/m/freetype-2.3.5.p4.spkg.1300660-0.htmlinstalled
it, and the build continued and installed pillow successfully.
After successfully installing several
In retrospect, it appears that the OP should have asked the following
question: From the perspective of Sage, if Python were to have
another arithmetic operator (denoted @) with identical precedence
rules to *, would we use it for anything? Would we extend the
coercion model, etc.?
18 matches
Mail list logo
