Dear Robert,
Sorry, yet another question: your package is able to generate orbit
representatives of graphs, when the symmetric group acts on the set of
vertices. Now, what about the case where some subgroup of the symmetric group
acts onb the vertices - is this handled, too?
Many thanks,
On Monday 18 August 2008, John H Palmieri wrote:
I've been thinking about editing the Sage Programming Guide, and I
have many questions.
Great! The survey showed that good developer docs is one of our main
weaknesses.
First, what do you think about changing the name to the Sage
Developers'
hi, what i meant is, that if you are using a news reader (subscribed
to a rss or atom feed) don't use the one from gmane - ignore this
otherwise ;)
The member list indicates a problem with the gmane address, it's
bouncing. This means, it does not exist or there is a problem with
gmane.
I've
Dear William,
I tried the sage -upgrade way but I did not realise it would compile
everything from scratch and how long it would take. Actually, I still
don't know how long it will take, since it has been compiling for more
than an hour now and is still going. I am upgrading from 3.0.5 on a
OK, it finished compiling with an error message after running sage -
upgrade on a MacBook Pro 2.4 GHz on OSX 10.4.
I got the following output at the end:
___gmpz_fdiv_r_ui referenced from libsingular expected to be defined
in /Users/robert/sage/current/local/lib/libgmp.3.dylib
collect2: ld
On Aug 18, 11:44 am, Harald Schilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The member list indicates a problem with the gmane address, it's
bouncing. This means, it does not exist or there is a problem with
gmane.
ok, i've read some of the error messages. The problem seems to be,
that the gmane smtp
On Monday 18 August 2008, Stan Schymanski wrote:
Dear William,
I tried the sage -upgrade way but I did not realise it would compile
everything from scratch and how long it would take. Actually, I still
don't know how long it will take, since it has been compiling for more
than an hour now
On Aug 18, 12:40 pm, Martin Albrecht [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
IIRC a complete compile from source costs like 2h so I assume you should be
done soon-ish.
for me, it took much longer,but it worked. 3.1.1 complete fresh from
source on ubuntu 8.04/32bit passes all tests.
h
I tried the sage -upgrade way but I did not realise it would compile
everything from scratch and how long it would take. Actually, I still
don't know how long it will take, since it has been compiling for more
than an hour now and is still going. I am upgrading from 3.0.5 on a
MacBook Pro 2.4 GHz
On Sunday 17 August 2008 01:05:53 pm John Cremona wrote:
I have needed the following. g(x) is a univariate polynomial which I
know to be a square, and i want its square root. g.factor() does too
much, as does g.squarefree_decomposition(). I can get the sqrt via
g.gcd(g.derivative()), which
Hello,
I found a bug that occurs when calling random_element() on a
polynomial or power series ring over a Givaro finite field (the Givaro
finite fields are used when the field is non-prime and has cardinality
2^16). The problem is that the polynomial ring assumes that its
base ring's
On Monday 18 August 2008, Hamish Ivey-Law wrote:
Hello,
I found a bug that occurs when calling random_element() on a
polynomial or power series ring over a Givaro finite field (the Givaro
finite fields are used when the field is non-prime and has cardinality
2^16). The problem is that
sage: V = QQ**2
sage: W = V.subspace([[1,2]])
sage: W([2,1], check=False) in W
True
If a user must do check=False in order to shoot themselves in the
foot, then we're doing pretty well.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to
Martin,
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Martin Rubey wrote:
Bill Page writes:
I am not so sure that a similar role can be played by FriCAS.
The FriCAS/Axiom libraries are not so easily called by an
external program. Instead we have the same option to interface
with FriCAS as we have with
On Aug 18, 4:31 pm, Martin Albrecht [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Monday 18 August 2008, Hamish Ivey-Law wrote:
Hello,
I found a bug that occurs when calling random_element() on a
polynomial or power series ring over a Givaro finite field (the Givaro
finite fields are used when the
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Bill Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin,
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Martin Rubey wrote:
Bill Page writes:
I am not so sure that a similar role can be played by FriCAS.
The FriCAS/Axiom libraries are not so easily called by an
external program.
So I'd suggest:
- to open a trac ticket for the particular issue you have (if you don't
have a Trac account yet, I can do that for you)
I don't have a Trac account yet, so that would be good, thanks.
This is now
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3892
- we open another
Oh of course, how could I forget. There's also functional
decomposition. But I've not investigated the asymptotics. I'm sure
Paul Zimmermann knows since he's been studying this in relation to
factoring polynomials, I think. I expect the asymptotics to be bad in
comparison with using power series
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Bill Page wrote:
...
Anyway, I think there is a lot of potential for improvement in the
existing 'axiom.py' interface even without considering how to
solve the problem of an efficient application program
Doh, there's another simple way. Maybe Joel already does this. Simply
substitute a large prime or sufficiently high power of 2 and take the
square root of the resulting integer. Read off the square root of the
polynomial from the p-adic expansion of the square root. This should
be asymptotically
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Bill Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Bill Page wrote:
...
Anyway, I think there is a lot of potential for improvement in the
existing 'axiom.py' interface even without
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Bill Page wrote:
...
There is supposed to be an easy way to call programs compiled
with ECL from C (and thus via some suitable wrapper from Python
or from Cython), but I have yet to see this
On Monday 18 August 2008 11:44:11 am Bill Hart wrote:
Assuming FLINT is in fact being used for the GCD in Z[x], the
implementation is only fast up to degree about 250. It depends on
your definition of fast though. :-) In a later release of FLINT, GCD
will be asymptotically faster, and
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Bill Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Bill Page wrote:
...
There is supposed to be an easy way to call programs compiled
with ECL from C (and thus via some suitable wrapper
Thanks! I'm on vacation hence I can not make test during a few days.
It seems strange that the library mpfr is located by the configure
script but the header file is not. One way to force it is to modify
CXXFLAGS and add a -I flag to a path where mpfr.h is installed
(something like export
P.S.: if you succeed, before doing bindings, please switch to 0.8.1,
since some headers have been modified to allow execution of
independant sessions in parallel.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:54 PM, parisse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks! I'm on vacation hence I can not make test during a few days.
It seems strange that the library mpfr is located by the configure
script but the header file is not. One way to force it is to modify
CXXFLAGS and add a -I
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Bill Page wrote:
... It is not so easy to call Python code from a C mainline
program either, is it?
Thanks to Cython, it is very easy to call my Python implementation
of something from pure C. And it's
On Monday 18 August 2008 12:06:06 pm Bill Hart wrote:
Doh, there's another simple way. Maybe Joel already does this. Simply
substitute a large prime or sufficiently high power of 2 and take the
square root of the resulting integer. Read off the square root of the
polynomial from the p-adic
Ok, thanks for the reply. the spkg-install is just a bash-script, so
whatever you do in a script is possible. Here is how it looks like
currently:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/ondrej/spkg/giac-0.8.0/spkg-install
According to http://wiki.sagemath.org/SPKG_Audit this is what a
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Martin Albrecht
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, thanks for the reply. the spkg-install is just a bash-script, so
whatever you do in a script is possible. Here is how it looks like
currently:
On 18 Aug, 17:39, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 18 August 2008 11:44:11 am Bill Hart wrote:
Assuming FLINT is in fact being used for the GCD in Z[x], the
implementation is only fast up to degree about 250. It depends on
your definition of fast though. :-) In a later
Ah I see thanks. I used some other spkg package as a template.
Which one? It needs to be fixed :-)
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x8EF0DC99
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
_jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The power series method would apply to any polynomial whose constant
term is a square (or rather, whose lowest degree monomial has the form
(square coefficient)*(even power of x). Viewed as a power series such
a thing is always a square, as a simple induction constructs a square
root. We
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Martin Albrecht
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah I see thanks. I used some other spkg package as a template.
Which one? It needs to be fixed :-)
Well, some unofficial one:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/gfurnish/spkg/glib-2.14.5.spkg
I thought that's the
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Bill Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Bill Page wrote:
... It is not so easy to call Python code from a C mainline
program either, is it?
Thanks to Cython, it is very
On Aug 18, 10:37 am, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Martin Albrecht
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah I see thanks. I used some other spkg package as a template.
Which one? It needs to be fixed :-)
Yes :)
Well, some unofficial one:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Ralf Hemmecke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
even looks a little clumsy in this case. My main point in these
comments, is that when converting between two different high-level
representations of some more complex mathematical object, e.g. a
matrix of p-adic
An appropriate amount of time has passed and I consider this a
positive vote for the inclusion of GHMM into Sage.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Robert Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sage: V = QQ**2
sage: W = V.subspace([[1,2]])
sage: W([2,1], check=False) in W
True
If a user must do check=False in order to shoot themselves in the
foot, then we're doing pretty well.
haha, that made my day. :)
If a polynomial is a perfect square, is it not necessarily true that
the constant term is a square? Thus you already bail out if this is
not the case.
I wonder when the time will come that virtually everything that can be
implemented, is implemented in Sage. The the algorithm will then
always
Oh sorry, I get you. You mean that if the first term *is* a square
then the power series method will *always* find a purported square
root for you.
So what I meant is that as soon as the power series algorithm returns
a non-zero coefficient past the n/2-th coefficient you know your
original
2008/8/18 Bill Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Oh sorry, I get you. You mean that if the first term *is* a square
then the power series method will *always* find a purported square
root for you.
Yes, that's what I meant.
So what I meant is that as soon as the power series algorithm returns
a
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Bill Page wrote:
Ok, thanks for the example. Yes I admit that using Cython this way
is quite nice. It makes me think that maybe it would be interesting
to write such Cython wrappers for calling larger
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Bill Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Bill Page wrote:
Ok, thanks for the example. Yes I admit that using Cython this way
is quite nice. It makes me think that maybe it
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, John Cremona wrote:
2008/8/18 Bill Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Oh sorry, I get you. You mean that if the first term *is* a square
then the power series method will *always* find a purported square
root for you.
Yes, that's what I meant.
So what I meant is that as soon
More questions about the Programming Guide:
It says:
You might also write additional documentation in \Latex, which is not
to
be part of any source code file. The examples in this documentation
should be contained in verbatim environments. The examples should be
tested using
On Aug 18, 2:02 am, Martin Albrecht [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Monday 18 August 2008, John H Palmieri wrote:
I've been thinking about editing the Sage Programming Guide, and I
have many questions.
Great! The survey showed that good developer docs is one of our main
weaknesses.
- the SPKG inclusion guidelines should probably also go into the Dev
manual.
Where can I find these guidelines?
http://wiki.sagemath.org/TracGuidelines
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
On Aug 18, 2008, at 4:41 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Aug 18, 2:02 am, Martin Albrecht [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Monday 18 August 2008, John H Palmieri wrote:
I've been thinking about editing the Sage Programming Guide, and I
have many questions.
Great! The survey showed that good
On Aug 18, 8:33 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Aug 18, 2008, at 4:41 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Aug 18, 2:02 am, Martin Albrecht [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Monday 18 August 2008, John H Palmieri wrote:
I've been thinking about editing the Sage Programming Guide,
Guys, I started to read that recently, and it's really appalling. How long
do you post on the Usenet? One of the first thing one should to learn is not
to quote the previous message in full, or most of it. Quote only the part
that you respond to.
Please.
Alec
On Aug 18, 9:35 pm, Alec Mihailovs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys, I started to read that recently, and it's really appalling. How long
do you post on the Usenet? One of the first thing one should to learn is not
to quote the previous message in full, or most of it. Quote only the part
that
- Show quoted text -
I didn't mean exactly your post. It was just a note in general. What is the
point in quoting if you read posts in Google? Everything is there, above.
It's just clogging my mail and I really don't see any point in it. What is
the point?
Alec
On 15/08/2008, at 12:49 PM, David Philp wrote:
Hi
I forgot to mention that this is boost 1.35.0. I assume it is a
difference between the boosts, because sage is unlikely to have
changed without you noticing. I am now compiling sage 3.0.3 and
3.0.6
with the --enable-framework, to see
Just random pick from today's mail, follows below, and sorry for top
posting. 100+ lines of quotting (I didn't really count, it may be less than
that) and 4 lines of comment. With my spam rules (everything with more than
50% of quotting goes to junk mail) it went directly there, where it
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Alec Mihailovs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys, I started to read that recently, and it's really appalling. How long
do you post on the Usenet? One of the first thing one should to learn is not
to quote the previous message in full, or most of it. Quote only the
57 matches
Mail list logo
