[sage-devel] Error in Trac reports

Report 51 (Active tickets I participated in / by time) includes closed tickets. Since these are available in report 54 (Tickets I've participated in, including closed / by time) the former should be adjusted to exclude them. Who has access to fix this? Thanks. -- You received this message

Re: [sage-devel] Error in Trac reports

On Sun, 5 Jul 2020, 23:42 Paul Masson, wrote: > Report 51 (Active tickets I participated in / by time) includes closed > tickets. Since these are available in report 54 (Tickets I've participated > in, including closed / by time) the former should be adjusted to exclude > them. Who has access to

Re: [sage-devel] Error in Trac reports

Report "{93} Active tickets I participated in (by time) (copy) " does not include the closed tickets (for me, at least). I found this in the "Available Reports" link on trac. On Sunday, July 5, 2020 at 4:47:40 PM UTC-6, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > On Sun,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Transpiling from Mathematica syntax to sage backends

On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 3:14 PM rjf wrote: > You could take a look at what Albert Rich has done for testing Rubi in > different systems. > Also, the theorem proving people using Coq want to match up with CAS. > Also, the history of formalizing mathematics (Frege, Russell, etc) may > influence

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Transpiling from Mathematica syntax to sage backends

Hi Rocky, I haven't followed every detail of this thread, but just wanted to encourage you. The official and original mission statement of SageMath is to "Create a viable free open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica and Matlab." Clearly, adding the ability to parse some

Re: [sage-devel] Unable to build sage

On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 06:44:59PM -0700, Daniel Bump wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > I guess this is due to gfortran 10. > > We still do not support gcc 10, I think. > > Can you downgrade it to gfortran 9? > > > > I had gfortran10 which

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Transpiling from Mathematica syntax to sage backends

On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 12:40 AM rjf wrote: > > There are at least two rather complete parsers for the "Wolfram Language" > which > render stuff like > foo[x_]:= Sin[x]+Log[x] > into trees / intermediate forms/ Lisp s-expressions. > (compare to Wolfram's "FullForm" which is essentially

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Transpiling from Mathematica syntax to sage backends

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 7:40 PM rjf wrote: > There are at least two rather complete parsers for the "Wolfram Language" > which > render stuff like > foo[x_]:= Sin[x]+Log[x] > into trees / intermediate forms/ Lisp s-expressions. > (compare to Wolfram's "FullForm" which is essentially lisp

Re: [sage-devel] Unable to build sage

On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 2:45 AM Daniel Bump wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> I guess this is due to gfortran 10. >> We still do not support gcc 10, I think. >> Can you downgrade it to gfortran 9? > > > I had gfortran10 which came with gcc.

Re: [sage-devel] Unable to build sage

On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 10:30 AM wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 06:44:59PM -0700, Daniel Bump wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > > > I guess this is due to gfortran 10. > > > We still do not support gcc 10, I think. > > > Can you

[sage-devel] Re: 2 issues with 9.2.beta3

On Sunday, July 5, 2020 at 2:33:40 AM UTC-7, David Coudert wrote: > > > 2) With this working 9.2.beta3, I found 2 doctests errors in > sage/graphs/connectivity.pyx (see below). > I can reproduce the errors inside the sage console. > > Then I realized that I forgot to "source .homebrew-build-env"

[sage-devel] Re: Transpiling from Mathematica syntax to sage backends

You could take a look at what Albert Rich has done for testing Rubi in different systems. Also, the theorem proving people using Coq want to match up with CAS. Also, the history of formalizing mathematics (Frege, Russell, etc) may influence your thinking. Maybe discourage you; see the history of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Transpiling from Mathematica syntax to sage backends

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 3:29 PM Nils Bruin wrote: > On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, Rocky Bernstein wrote: >> >> >> So one goal as briefly mentioned was to be able to write/use a common >> language for expressing CAS. >> > > This goal (or perhaps a little more broadly, a common

[sage-devel] 2 issues with 9.2.beta3

Hello, 1) To be able to compile the documentation of 9.2.beta2, I had to "export LANG=C.UTF-8 " See discussion here https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-release/7wBxNRbJaaU But after "git pull" on develop branch to get 9.2.beta3, "make" fails quickly. It indicates that language

Re: [sage-devel] 2 issues with 9.2.beta3

On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 10:33 AM David Coudert wrote: > > Hello, > > 1) To be able to compile the documentation of 9.2.beta2, I had to "export > LANG=C.UTF-8 " > See discussion here > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-release/7wBxNRbJaaU > > But after "git pull" on develop branch to