(cc'ing the sage-combinat folks who may not have seen this)
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On this note: http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/
It has some heuristics, but it's far from perfect. As people learn the
conventions of the buildbot, and the buildbot learns the conventions
of
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,
That's awesome. This will make me far more likely to review tickets.
David
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 04:08, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.eduwrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree. And with quick, automated feedback they can go
Wow, that question got people interested!
Checking a few books myself I was struck by how many advanced texts
avoid using the term at all (for the adjugate or classical adjoint).
P M Cohn's Algebra 1 defines adjugate (p.196).
Maclana and Birkhoff (p.194) call it the classical adjoint.
Here's a suggestion:
Make a concise log that's loadable in a browser in a small amount of time
(the current log files are too long to be easily readable in Firefox for
me). For example:
import re
def concise_log(long_log_name, concise_log_name):
with open(long_log_name) as long_log:
On Dec 3, 7:47 am, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote:
You can also develop a Cython interface to cddlib, to get Sage on par
with Polymake in this regard.
I don't think this is a particularly useful project. The cddlib API
is, by today's standards, not very well designed. No automatic
Hi folks,
I noticed the following inconsistent behaviour while working on ticket
#8395 [1]. Given a multigraph G with one self-loop at vertex v,
disable loops in G and query the degree of v. This should report the
correct degree:
sage: version()
'Sage Version 4.6, Release Date: 2010-10-30'
sage:
It would be interesting to compare Intel MKL vs. AMD ACML vs. threaded
ATLAS.
what is the best way to do this? Is there a program or code I can
test? I too think this is interesting.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Mag Gam magaw...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. I will monitor this ticket an starting
Here's what is going on:
There are two arrays, in_degree and out_degree, which count the number
of arcs coming in and going out, respectively. Then the degree of a
vertex is the sum of these things if you don't worry about loops.
If a graph is not directed, then the degrees are doubled, since
On Dec 2, 8:52 am, jplab jeanphilippela...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a student currently at Techniche Universität Berlin, so Polymake
is quite the most popular software when dealing with polytopes as it
was created here some years ago. I went through the threads about
Polymake in Sage-devel...
For the record, Polymake switched to jReality (http://www3.math.tu-
berlin.de/jreality) for its 3d graphics recently. So, apart from
nauty, which probably isn't that crucial to Polymake, I think its all
GPL now. I saw a few glimpses of the jReality GUI and it looks really
nice!
Volker
--
To
How often will / should pari be updated within sage?
I encountered a bug in pari 2.4.3 (alpha) while working on a sage ticket. I
reported it to pari, and they fixed it the same day. But then it takes some
time for this fix to reach sage, or we could update sage with bug fixes
immediately.
I
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Marco Streng marco.str...@gmail.com wrote:
How often will / should pari be updated within sage?
I encountered a bug in pari 2.4.3 (alpha) while working on a sage ticket. I
reported it to pari, and they fixed it the same day.
This is the case for every bug I've
Minh,
I've fixed the problem and I'll post a patch once I finish testing it...
--
Robert L. Miller
http://www.rlmiller.org/
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For
On Dec 2, 7:37 pm, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
Query: why would we use wolfram alpha, when (for example) the
University of Washington has a site license for mathematica?
Oddly enough, I agree with Tom.
RJF
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:05 AM, David Roe r...@math.harvard.edu wrote:
import re
def concise_log(long_log_name, concise_log_name):
with open(long_log_name) as long_log:
log = long_log.read()
p = The following tests
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:47 AM, David Roe r...@math.harvard.edu wrote:
That's awesome. This will make me far more likely to review tickets.
Me too. And I hope for many others out there. We've needed something
like this for a long time.
- Robert
--
To post to this group, send an email to
On Dec 3, 11:37 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:47 AM, David Roe r...@math.harvard.edu wrote:
That's awesome. This will make me far more likely to review tickets.
Me too. And I hope for many others out there. We've needed something
like
On Dec 1, 6:40 pm, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
(In a letter apparently addressed to WRI and posted here...)..
...
To save any further discussions on the Sage developers list about
whether the use of WolframAlpha in the way I explained would be
permissible, could you please
A couple of the patches I've been working on are failing the new
automatic testing because some ticket attachments are being applied
that shouldn't be -- is there a way to fix this myself without
becoming a trac administrator?
For example:
http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/1956/
The
On Dec 3, 7:54 pm, Niles nil...@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of the patches I've been working on are failing the new
automatic testing because some ticket attachments are being applied
that shouldn't be -- is there a way to fix this myself without
becoming a trac administrator?
+1 to this, that
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, luisfe lftab...@yahoo.es wrote:
On Dec 3, 7:54 pm, Niles nil...@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of the patches I've been working on are failing the new
automatic testing because some ticket attachments are being applied
that shouldn't be -- is there a way to fix
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, luisfe lftab...@yahoo.es wrote:
On Dec 3, 7:54 pm, Niles nil...@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of the patches I've been working on are failing the new
automatic testing because
(cc'ing the sage-combinat folks who may not have seen this)
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On this note: http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/
It has some heuristics, but it's far from perfect. As people learn the
conventions of the buildbot, and the buildbot learns the conventions
of
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Jason Bandlow jband...@gmail.com wrote:
(cc'ing the sage-combinat folks who may not have seen this)
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On this note: http://sage.math.washington.edu:21100/ticket/
It has some heuristics, but it's far from perfect. As people learn the
On Friday, December 3, 2010, Johan S. R. Nielsen
j.s.r.niel...@mat.dtu.dk 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
On 12/3/10 1:05 AM, Rob Beezer wrote:
On Dec 2, 10:55 pm, Dima Pasechnikdimp...@gmail.com wrote:
But for conjugate transpose one can just introduce operator ^*, as
usually
the conjugate transpose of $A$ is denoted by $A^*$.
Accepted notation is another can of worms. Conjugate-transpose can
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:40 PM, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 2 December 2010 18:20, 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
28 matches
Mail list logo
