Re: [sage-devel] Re: What to do with sage-abuse
Hi, On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 02:04:28PM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote: Hi! Does anyone have another suggestion for this? William had posted this at some point in the long thread: Since I attempted to retract this proposal in light of Volker's sensible criticism, and people keep responding as if I didn't, let me officially retract this proposal. Instead I support what I think Volker suggested, which is using our existing completely open voting process on sage-devel, as we have been doing for years, for sage-abuse issues. But to make it clear that we care about sage-abuse issues and make clear the existence of sage-flame. I could not find Volker's statement on the public mailing-list, could you please provide a link ? Ciao, Thierry This would mean it is a community decision and discussion and not done by group of select people. Best, Anne -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Sorry if I didn't respond fast enough, I'm teaching this semester (check out http://vbraun.cc/qft, also includes some Sage numerical experiments) Why is it so important? If it makes you feel better to personally insult somebody then PM me, I can take it. But I'm pretty sure that the authors would be less happy to be called big-dicked than me. If you are interested in gender roles then I'm happy to report that persons of both genders contributed to it. I was not personally involved (in my negative spare time), but I was asked whether I agree. I did and I posted it. Frankly, having a code of conduct akin to Fedora/Django isn't a big conspiracy. I haven't seen any argument that Fedora/Django should not have a code of conduct, and if you want to argue against one in general then your argument should cover that. Unless you think that being a mathematician makes your inter-personal behavior superior to that of a non-mathematician. But I think the recent thread is ample evidence that talking to mathematicians about ethics is perhaps even more hopeless than to talk to a moral philosopher about mathematics. On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:37:58 AM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote: Thus I am asking again, and politely despite my finding very disrespectful to have a legitimate question ignored: who was on the short list to write what is now our code of conduct, when was it initiated and in which conditions ? (yes, there are three parts to the question) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Ya know... Nathann. Buddy. Calling out people who may have had complaints that could trigger a discussion about a code of conduct is a bully move. Please avoid doing this in the future. If you want to vent your spleen, you're welcome to do it on sage-flame. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everybody, I created this thread because this question was asked several times, that I am sure everybody saw it, and that it still did not get any answer. Thus I am asking again, and politely despite my finding very disrespectful to have a legitimate question ignored: who was on the short list to write what is now our code of conduct, when was it initiated and in which conditions ? (yes, there are three parts to the question) If, as it is very likely, the question is ignored again, I will simply have to point to this thread whenever I need in the future to give my opinion on what democracy has become here. Thanks, Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hi, On 2014-11-26, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote: Ya know... Nathann. Buddy. Calling out people who may have had complaints that could trigger a discussion about a code of conduct is a bully move. Please avoid doing this in the future. If you want to vent your spleen, you're welcome to do it on sage-flame. If I understand correctly, Nathann did not ask for the people whose complaints triggered the creation of a code of conduct, but he asked for the people who participated in the formulation of the code of conduct. And I don't think that the latter is a bully move. It seems that some of the recent posts in this thread, including the post to which I am answering, are a lot more heated then they should be. Hopefully we don't see the effect that I predicted in earlier posts: It could be that the mere existence of a code of conduct can have a negative effect on the behaviour in discussions, simply because some may feel entitled to bash people by reference to the code's authority. Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Thus I am asking again, and politely despite my finding very disrespectful to have a legitimate question ignored: who was on the short list to write what is now our code of conduct, when was it initiated and in which conditions ? (yes, there are three parts to the question) Hi Nathan, I participated in the initial drafting of the code. Our draft closely follows, and was stolen from, similar codes of conduct from other projects. Ultimately all that it asks is that people be polite and respectful towards others. I don't think that this very onerous. Rather than being put forward as a fait accompli (or even a fiat accompli:) Volker's initial post asked everyone to (discuss and) vote on whether we should adopt the code. That is, from the onset people were asked for their opinion. If you reread the thread, when the discussion started becoming heated William tried to close it. When that failed, he asked everyone to vote on it. This looks quite democratic to me. This said, since the vote was so close, and seemingly so contentious, I'm not sure we should adopt it. Personally I would prefer to see it, or some variation of it, adopted as guidelines -- having to enforce a code is contrary to the underlying principle of being polite. The motivation for suggesting the code was that quite a few people were unhappy with repeated negative comments that appeared in a long series of posts. I had tried talking off-list with the person making these to try and explain to them why their comments were not helpful. Later I learned that several other people had, independently, talked to this person as well. (Incidentally, the poster is a valued developer, which makes them much harder to ignore than some one like rjf.) Speaking for myself, if one person tells me I'm being rude I'll probably take notice, but perhaps I'd shrug them off. If four people tell me I'm being rude then change my behaviour. Unfortunately, nothing changed. A number of people have stopped contributing to sage because of such interactions, and there is a danger that others will stop. I don't want that. As nothing else had worked I thought that it was worth proposing some guidelines in the hope that this might help. I'm still a little baffled as to why the suggestion that we try to being nice to each other is causing such a commotion. Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hi Nathan, I participated in the initial drafting of the code. Our draft closely follows, and was stolen from, similar codes of conduct from other projects. Ultimately all that it asks is that people be polite and respectful towards others. I don't think that this very onerous. Rather than being put forward as a fait accompli (or even a fiat accompli:) Volker's initial post asked everyone to (discuss and) vote on whether we should adopt the code. That is, from the onset people were asked for their opinion. If you reread the thread, when the discussion started becoming heated William tried to close it. When that failed, he asked everyone to vote on it. This looks quite democratic to me. This said, since the vote was so close, and seemingly so contentious, I'm not sure we should adopt it. Personally I would prefer to see it, or some variation of it, adopted as guidelines -- having to enforce a code is contrary to the underlying principle of being polite. The motivation for suggesting the code was that quite a few people were unhappy with repeated negative comments that appeared in a long series of posts. I had tried talking off-list with the person making these to try and explain to them why their comments were not helpful. Later I learned that several other people had, independently, talked to this person as well. (Incidentally, the poster is a valued developer, which makes them much harder to ignore than some one like rjf.) Speaking for myself, if one person tells me I'm being rude I'll probably take notice, but perhaps I'd shrug them off. If four people tell me I'm being rude then I change my behaviour. Unfortunately, nothing changed. A number of people have stopped contributing to sage because of these interactions, and there is a danger that others will stop. I don't want that. As nothing else had worked I was in favour of proposing some guidelines to the community in the hope that this would help. I'm still a little baffled as to why the suggestion that we try to be nice to each other is causing such a commotion. Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Rather than being put forward as a fait accompli (or even a fiat accompli:) Volker's initial post asked everyone to (discuss and) vote on whether we should adopt the code. That is, from the onset people were asked for their opinion. If you reread the thread, when the discussion started becoming heated William tried to close it. When that failed, he asked everyone to vote on it. This looks quite democratic to me. This said, since the vote was so close, and seemingly so contentious, I'm not sure we should adopt it. Personally I would prefer to see it, or some variation of it, adopted as guidelines -- having to enforce a code is contrary to the underlying principle of being polite. I would be in favour of this: having guidelines and not an enforced code. The sage-abuse could still be there, as I see it, it could be a place to say Hey, I didn't feel this conversation was aright and I was affected by such or such behaviour, a way to ask support from the community, also to point out when there is some really big abuse we think something should be done (I hope this never happens). Not the same as sage-flame which is to discuss subject that we know could be heated and we raise a warning flag for other participants. The motivation for suggesting the code was that quite a few people were unhappy with repeated negative comments that appeared in a long series of posts. I had tried talking off-list with the person making these to try and explain to them why their comments were not helpful. Later I learned that several other people had, independently, talked to this person as well. (Incidentally, the poster is a valued developer, which makes them much harder to ignore than some one like rjf.) Speaking for myself, if one person tells me I'm being rude I'll probably take notice, but perhaps I'd shrug them off. If four people tell me I'm being rude then change my behaviour. Unfortunately, nothing changed. A number of people have stopped contributing to sage because of such interactions, and there is a danger that others will stop. I don't want that. As nothing else had worked I thought that it was worth proposing some guidelines in the hope that this might help. I'm still a little baffled as to why the suggestion that we try to being nice to each other is causing such a commotion. Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
On 2014-11-26 14:22, Andrew wrote: I'm still a little baffled as to why the suggestion that we try to being nice to each other is causing such a commotion. You're confusing the Code of Conduct with the suggestion that we try to being nice to each other. The former is what causing commotion. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hi, On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:45:49AM -0800, Volker Braun wrote: Sorry if I didn't respond fast enough, I'm teaching this semester (check out http://vbraun.cc/qft, also includes some Sage numerical experiments) You make a point about votes with short deadlines. Hovewer, the vote seems still considered as legitimate by some. Why is it so important? If it makes you feel better to personally insult somebody then PM me, I can take it. I am not sure people asking for transparency aim at insulting anybody. But I'm pretty sure that the authors would be less happy to be called big-dicked than me. This is out of context. This bad sarcasm was not about people (not even yourself) but about establishing a ranking within Sage community, even more a ranking based on quantitative criteria such as number of commits, which i still find patriarchal and unfair to the Sage community. If you are interested in gender roles then I'm happy to report that persons of both genders contributed to it. I was not personally involved (in my negative spare time), but I was asked whether I agree. I did and I posted it. Frankly, having a code of conduct akin to Fedora/Django isn't a big conspiracy. I haven't seen any argument that Fedora/Django should not have a code of conduct, and if you want to argue against one in general then your argument should cover that. Unless you think that being a mathematician makes your inter-personal behavior superior to that of a non-mathematician. But I think the recent thread is ample evidence that talking to mathematicians about ethics is perhaps even more hopeless than to talk to a moral philosopher about mathematics. The problem is precisely here : requiring ethics from the other in an unethical way hurts. The problem is not only about the content of the text, but about the way it was enforced, written by a hidden group, voted without possible modification, and so on (i will not repeat all arguments here). Ciao, Thierry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hello, From Volker: Why is it so important? If it makes you feel better to personally insult somebody then PM me, I can take it. But I'm pretty sure that the authors would be less happy to be called big-dicked than me. I feel hurt by Volker's answer... should I report on sage-abuse? Nathann called nobody big as far as I can remember. At least you agree that it is a conspiracy. From Andrew: Hi Nathan, I participated in the initial drafting of the code. Our draft closely follows, and was stolen from, similar codes of conduct from other projects. The main question of Nathann, which is really fundamental is: why was it redacted by a small group of people and immediately proposed as a vote (and not as an open discussion)?. This is really what happend: the first message of the thread is the proposal of the code of honnor (by Volker) and the second is the proposal to vote about it (by William). You are right that there was a communication problem. But this was not presented in this way! Ultimately all that it asks is that people be polite and respectful towards others. I don't think that this very onerous. This has been discussed and I do not agree. The code of honor is not at all welcoming. I would have started any official text by Anybody is welcome to contribute or something like that. It looks much more: like if you do not agree with somebody then do not say it too loudly. Volker's initial post asked everyone to (discuss and) vote on whether we should adopt the code. That is, from the onset people were asked for their opinion. If you reread the thread, when the discussion started becoming heated William tried to close it. When that failed, he asked everyone to vote on it. This looks quite democratic to me. Two questions: democracy is good ? I thought we were open to everyone, not only to the majority... this vote is democratic ? a yes/no vote that we have to do in two days on a text prepared in advance by a small group of people is not democratic. Even Volker was not able to vote because of his teaching. This said, since the vote was so close, and seemingly so contentious, I'm not sure we should adopt it. Personally I would prefer to see it, or some variation of it, adopted as guidelines -- having to enforce a code is contrary to the underlying principle of being polite. +1 Let me say again on the list that I am in favor of having a text that define what is the sage community. And this has to be agreed by everyone and modified until a common consensus. A wiki page is open: http://wiki.sagemath.org/SageCommunityProposal The motivation for suggesting the code was that quite a few people were unhappy with repeated negative comments that appeared in a long series of posts. I had tried talking off-list with the person making these to try and I really think that this should have been said before. This is really important to mention that some people were hurt. Anne Schilling mentioned some of it but it was never really discussed. It seems that it is the hidden subject of that proposal. And it is shameful that it ends with the creation of a police. guidelines in the hope that this might help. I'm still a little baffled as to why the suggestion that we try to being nice to each other is causing such a commotion. You can not state be nice as an order. The only thing which makes sense is to say welcome. Vincent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hi, On 2014-11-26, Thierry sage-googlesu...@lma.metelu.net wrote: The problem is precisely here : requiring ethics from the other in an unethical way hurts. Exactly. And it seems to me that these consequences became visible in this discussion already. Cheers, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
From Andrew: Hi Nathan, I participated in the initial drafting of the code. Our draft closely follows, and was stolen from, similar codes of conduct from other projects. The main question of Nathann, which is really fundamental is: why was it redacted by a small group of people and immediately proposed as a vote (and not as an open discussion)?. This is really what happend: the first message of the thread is the proposal of the code of honnor (by Volker) and the second is the proposal to vote about it (by William). You're not being completely fair on this. There was a lot of discussions going on on the first thread before the vote was proposed. Most of the discussion was about having a code of conduct or not having one, but people could also have suggested changes in the text itself. I don't know why people wrote the text before, probably it didn't strike them as being a problem as they mostly adapted other texts from similar groups. Anyway, I don't see anything weird here. Sometimes, we do the same with code: someone just does the job and propose an implementation and then ask the community what they think. It does not mean the text cannot be changed, You are right that there was a communication problem. But this was not presented in this way! Ultimately all that it asks is that people be polite and respectful towards others. I don't think that this very onerous. This has been discussed and I do not agree. The code of honor is not at all welcoming. I would have started any official text by Anybody is welcome to contribute or something like that. It looks much more: like if you do not agree with somebody then do not say it too loudly. Once again, the text can be changed, you can make such a proposition... Also it is not a question of not being loudly, but of being respectful when disagreeing, which was not always the case in sage-devel. +1 Let me say again on the list that I am in favor of having a text that define what is the sage community. And this has to be agreed by everyone and modified until a common consensus. A wiki page is open: http://wiki.sagemath.org/SageCommunityProposal That seems like interesting project but it's quite a different one and a much bigger one. In my opinion, the actual Code of conduct has no ambition to define the Sage community, I really understand it as some basic guidelines to behave towards each other... The motivation for suggesting the code was that quite a few people were unhappy with repeated negative comments that appeared in a long series of posts. I had tried talking off-list with the person making these to try and I really think that this should have been said before. This is really important to mention that some people were hurt. Anne Schilling mentioned some of it but it was never really discussed. It seems that it is the hidden subject of that proposal. And it is shameful that it ends with the creation of a police. Once again, I don't see where there is a police. No one has been given any power over anyone else, there is no sanction mentioned, or anything like this. guidelines in the hope that this might help. I'm still a little baffled as to why the suggestion that we try to being nice to each other is causing such a commotion. You can not state be nice as an order. The only thing which makes sense is to say welcome. I disagree with that. You can say welcome and be nice (or something more specific like be respectful), I don't see why not. Vincent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:41:32 PM UTC, vdelecroix wrote: I would have started any official text by Anybody is welcome to contribute or something like that. That sounds like a mission statement, not like a code of conduct. Really, much of the 2-week discussion was just cultural confusion about what a code of conduct is. Mostly from the non-Americans who have never seen such a thing. And I understand your culture shock in that regard. On the other side were people that are quite familiar with codes of conducts in other organizations and were just as rightfully confused that we can't even agree on being nice to each other. Also, during the lengthy discussion there were very few concrete actionable suggestions for changes. You were one of the few honorable exceptions when you put the text on the wiki to make changes. But so far there has only been one edit by yourself, so I think its fair to say that this did not gather much momentum. Still I would be happy if people can come up with relevant changes, but please keep it on the topic of a code of conduct. Even Volker was not able to vote because of his teaching. I could have voted, but I didn't. Mostly because I think that the whole discussion was more useful than a text tucked away on the web page when it comes to reminding everyone to stay civil. So I would have counted either outcome as a win... You can not state be nice as an order. The only thing which makes sense is to say welcome. Then why is it called Kant's categorial imperative, should we rephrase it as Kant's categorial suggestion? Its just an English language thing. If you want to argue about it please include other codes of conduct and explain why they are wrong, too. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2014 14:47:29 UTC+1 schrieb Viviane Pons: I would be in favour of this: having guidelines and not an enforced code. ++ ...that would require another voting which invalidates the previous one... Jakob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
2014-11-26 16:29 GMT+01:00 Jakob Kroeker kroe...@uni-math.gwdg.de: Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2014 14:47:29 UTC+1 schrieb Viviane Pons: I would be in favour of this: having guidelines and not an enforced code. ++ ...that would require another voting which invalidates the previous one... Probably, but let's not rush into anything!! We've seen the consequence of that. I agree that the vote was a bit early but I guess William just did as he thought was best, he wasn't trying to enforce anything but maybe just to settle the point. He could not predict the direction of the vote, it was a close call. Jakob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 7:29:52 AM UTC-8, Jakob Kroeker wrote: Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2014 14:47:29 UTC+1 schrieb Viviane Pons: I would be in favour of this: having guidelines and not an enforced code. ++ ...that would require another voting which invalidates the previous one... It wouldn't invalidate it, it would be a vote for an amendment. This follows the legislative process. Also, we're never going to get *everyone* to agree, that's why we take either a majority or super-majority (67%) opinion. However we haven't decided as a community what deserves a majority or super-majority vote. Best, Travis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Viviane Pons vivianep...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-11-26 16:29 GMT+01:00 Jakob Kroeker kroe...@uni-math.gwdg.de: Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2014 14:47:29 UTC+1 schrieb Viviane Pons: I would be in favour of this: having guidelines and not an enforced code. ++ ...that would require another voting which invalidates the previous one... Probably, but let's not rush into anything!! We've seen the consequence of that. I agree that the vote was a bit early but I guess William just did as he thought was best, he wasn't trying to enforce anything but maybe just to settle the point. He could not predict the direction of the vote, it was a close call. So you don't have to guess, I agree with the above guesses about what I thought. I also agree with Volker's statement: I could have voted, but I didn't. Mostly because I think that the whole discussion was more useful than a text tucked away on the web page when it comes to reminding everyone to stay civil. So I would have counted either outcome as a win... William -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hello everybody, The reason why I felt that Thierry's question was legitimate, and the reason why I renewed it repeatedly, is that I do not like to think that anybody here has so much disrespect for our community that they believe possible to write its laws in secret [1] and have them proposed for vote while hiding behind the release manager (whose opinions, because of his status, have more weight for the community). We cannot accept our new legislative system to be closed-source. Secondly, a vote does not make a democracy: the simple fact that the authors had all the time to agree on the text means that they were much more prepared than the 'no'-voters at the critical time. We had to build our argumentation on-the-fly, while everything was being done. This is not equally fair on both sides. Thus I do not believe that this was democratic. Volker, Tom: Please consider the tone of my first email, and the tone of your answers. Please consider the code of conduct that was just voted. Can you see why I may feel that you broke it clearly and cleanly at my expense ? If those rules are not only meant to apply to me, do you think the community should react to that ? Andrew: if one person tells me I'm being rude I'll probably take notice [...]. If four people tell me I'm being rude then I change my behaviour The book I read these days is entitled Nonviolent communication: a language of life. Because of the way I talk, many persons stop at the words and stop caring about the meaning. It does harm to my professional life and in my private life too. You would be wrong to believe that I do not care. Some opinions, however, are hard to defend. Against a code saying 'be nice'. As Jeroen said: not because of 'be nice', but because it is a code. Some are hard to defend, because 10 persons agree and you are the only one to disagree. It is so easy for them to disregard your opinion: they litterally do not have to care: they are sufficiently many to do what they wish whatever you think. Yet you believe that there is truth in what you say. Please note, however, that in this thread you do not have to complain about my behaviour as much as I could complain about others'. So, somehow. There are changes. Finally: I do not forget why I created this thread, and the list of original authors still has not been made public. We deserve this much respect. Nathann P.S.: Five interesting pages that a friend sent me: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~corp1468/Welcome_files/Srinivasan_In%20Defence%20of%20Anger.pdf [1] No public announcements; Private exchanges; Hidden list of participants: this is what 'in secret' means. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)
On 25 November 2014 at 14:51, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote: ... Try it this way: a*b = exp(?1) a = exp(?2) b = exp(?3) I think 'normalize' is saying that there is a solution that makes ?1 - ?2 - ?3 = 0. Ok, but why wouldn't normalize return 2*pi*i instead? Or 4*pi*i? These are equivalent in the sense of having the same number of algebraically independent transcendental kernels, i.e. none. I don't understand that. Is the result of normalize() multivalued? No. Or how else could 0 be equivalent to 2*pi*i or 4*pi*i? It is not equality it is an equivalence relation i.e. modulo constants. To dig deeper on this I think would need to consult the source code and someone who is much more of an expert in this subject: Waldek Hebisch. In other words, how exactly are the operations on the multivalued sets log(x) defined? FriCAS does not perform operations on multivalued sets to determine the above. Ok. Though my question stands, how are the operations defined in your approach? Does it help if a say the operations are defined symbolically? Maybe we need to define exactly what operations we are talking about. ... Essentially the [derivative] formula with theta is equivalent to just returning a tuple of the two Wirtinger derivatives. So what holds for one approach holds for the other one. Yes, so we agree that in general more than one derivative operator is necessary. ... My current best solution is to define a function `diff(x, theta=0)`, where the theta argument is 0 by default, but you can pass any angle into it, or a symbol theta if you want. That way you won't get the theta factors by default, but if in doubt, you can always get them. It seems that you prefer an infinite number of derivative operators while I still think it is best to define only two. Let me know if you have a better proposal. After continued thinking about this and my current experiments in FriCAS I am still of the opinion that the best option is to implement just the Wirtinger derivative (only one since the other can be obtained by 'conjugate'). This has the affect of making the derivative of non-analytic functions subtly different than what you call the conventional real derivative (e.g. factor of 1/2 in derivative of 'abs'). I have decided that I would prefer to explain this difference to a less experienced user, rather than to get into a discussion of theta and directional derivatives. Bill. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hi Volker, On 2014-11-26, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote: Really, much of the 2-week discussion was just cultural confusion about what a code of conduct is. Mostly from the non-Americans who have never seen such a thing. And I understand your culture shock in that regard. On the other side were people that are quite familiar with codes of conducts in other organizations and were just as rightfully confused that we can't even agree on being nice to each other. What you seem to not understand, Volker, is that Sage has grown far beyond a US project. So, a code of conduct is an American thing is not a good argument for having a code of conduct. And to repeat it since you seem to ignore it: Some people (I think I have not been the only one) see the clear possibility that in future we will behave less nicely towards each other *because* of a code of conduct. I did not want a code of conduct *because* I want a civilised atmosphere in the Sage community. And you may notice that some of the recent posts here already went into the direction of instrumenting the questionable authority of a code of conduct in order to bash people, assuming that people have bad intentions when they just did an awkward translation. That's a very bad symptom, IMHO! Also, during the lengthy discussion there were very few concrete actionable suggestions for changes. Yes there was. The suggestion to delete the code of conduct was very concrete. Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)
On 25 November 2014 at 15:14, Erik Massop e.mas...@hccnet.nl wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:30:33 -0500 Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote: On 25 November 2014 at 01:11, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote: ... But I don't want to be forced to make a choice of branch until I actually need to evaluate an expression numerically. I understand that's what you want. I am just trying to understand how exactly this works. OK. Without a choice of branch for sqrt, I cannot answer this question: * Is there complex number x such that x*conjugate(x) equals sqrt(2)? This seems a non-numerical question to me. It seems to me that sqrt without a choice of branch is ill-defined, but perhaps it is sufficiently well-defined if you restrict to a certain kind of questions? If so, what questions can I ask? I think I know too little about the subject of this thread and of FriCAS. It seems to me that you comment and example are quite appropriate although for discussion of FriCAS I do recommend the fricas-devel email list. I think you are right that one must restrict the kind of questions. In particular I think one needs to be very careful to define what one means by equal. Usually this means that we can only answer questions up to some equivalence relation. ... I want this to be algebraic, not some theorem of predicate calculus. That is what I meant by taking x + conjugate(x) as the definition of a real valued variable. Do you mean that z is considered real-valued when there is x such that x + conjugate(x) is z? I got lost in this part of the thread. Yes exactly. ... Try it this way: a*b = exp(?1) a = exp(?2) b = exp(?3) I think 'normalize' is saying that there is a solution that makes ?1 - ?2 - ?3 = 0. Ok, but why wouldn't normalize return 2*pi*i instead? Or 4*pi*i? These are equivalent in the sense of having the same number of algebraically independent transcendental kernels, i.e. none. Am I understanding correctly that normalize picks some arbitrary representative of an equivalence class of answers? That seems scary to me, but perhaps it is sufficiently well-defined for some questions? Yes. More specifically FriCAS 'normalize' is an important part of the machinery for integration but has other uses. ... This discussion is about how a CAS should handle (complex) differentiation. Since it started here, I would finish it here, so that the whole thread is in one mailinglist for future reference. OK. It would be nice to know if other sage-devel subscribers actually remain interested... Yes, I find this thread casually interesting. However, I know little of the subject of or FriCAS, which is also the reason I did not write before. No problem. I am happy to continue this discussion in whatever direction and where ever (fricas-devel?) you like. ... The Wikipedia page suggests that df/d conjugate(z) is conjugate(conjugate(f).diff(z)). If that is indeed the case, then it seems that df/d conjugate(z) might be handled without implementing a second diff-method. You are right. In fact that is exactly the proposal with which I initial continued Ondřej's original thread. The main sticking point I think is that the resulting derivative is subtly different for non-holomorphic functions and that in this case using both Wirtinger derivatives (or just one and 'conjugate') is necessary. Bill. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hi Nathann, On 2014-11-26, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote: Volker, Tom: Please consider the tone of my first email, and the tone of your answers. Please consider the code of conduct that was just voted. Can you see why I may feel that you broke it clearly and cleanly at my expense ? If those rules are not only meant to apply to me, do you think the community should react to that ? I think I did react to that. If I didn't then I hope you accept my apology. Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote: On 25 November 2014 at 14:51, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote: ... Try it this way: a*b = exp(?1) a = exp(?2) b = exp(?3) I think 'normalize' is saying that there is a solution that makes ?1 - ?2 - ?3 = 0. Ok, but why wouldn't normalize return 2*pi*i instead? Or 4*pi*i? These are equivalent in the sense of having the same number of algebraically independent transcendental kernels, i.e. none. I don't understand that. Is the result of normalize() multivalued? No. Or how else could 0 be equivalent to 2*pi*i or 4*pi*i? It is not equality it is an equivalence relation i.e. modulo constants. To dig deeper on this I think would need to consult the source code and someone who is much more of an expert in this subject: Waldek Hebisch. In other words, how exactly are the operations on the multivalued sets log(x) defined? FriCAS does not perform operations on multivalued sets to determine the above. Ok. Though my question stands, how are the operations defined in your approach? Does it help if a say the operations are defined symbolically? All I want is if you can give me an algorithm of your approach in sufficient detail, so that it can be implemented by me on a computer. And by your approach, I mean an approach, where conjugate(log(x)) = log(conjugate(x)) for all x. I have provided all the details of the algorithm (B). In approach (B), it is not true that conjugate(log(x)) = log(conjugate(x)) for all x. This equation (when conjugate(log(x)) = log(conjugate(x)) holds) started this whole discussion. So I was trying to understand your approach how to make this hold for all x, and I suggested various ways how maybe it could be implemented, and to most of it you said that's not how FriCAS does it. At this point I don't have any more ideas how it could be done, so I don't know how to implement your approach. Which is sad -- even though I am not advocating for your approach, I wanted to really understand it, so that I can make my own opinion on the pros and cons. Maybe we need to define exactly what operations we are talking about. Sure. Let's just stick to one example, let me just copy paste it from my previous email: from cmath import log a = -1 b = -1 log(a*b) 0j log(a)+log(b) 6.283185307179586j def arg(x): return log(x).imag ... from math import floor, pi I = 1j log(a)+log(b)+2*pi*I*floor(( pi-arg(a)-arg(b))/(2*pi)) 0j As you confirmed, even if you evaluate this in FriCAS, log(a*b) is not equal to log(a) + log(b), when a=b=-1. However, you claim that symbolically it is true that log(a*b) = log(a) - log(b) for all a and b and you provided a FriCAS function normalize that does it, but you said that for deeper understanding you would need to consult Waldek Hebisch. Can you explain the discrepancy/inconsistency? How exactly are the operations in log(a*b) = log(a) - log(b) defined, so that this equation holds, even though when you put in a=b=-1, you get a different number on the LHS and RHS, as confirmed by FriCAS? Once we resolve this, we can get back to conjugate(log(x)) = log(conjugate(x)) which also clearly doesn't hold for x=-1 for the same reason, and so you must be able to somehow extend the operations so that this equation holds even for x=-1 somehow in your approach. ... Essentially the [derivative] formula with theta is equivalent to just returning a tuple of the two Wirtinger derivatives. So what holds for one approach holds for the other one. Yes, so we agree that in general more than one derivative operator is necessary. ... My current best solution is to define a function `diff(x, theta=0)`, where the theta argument is 0 by default, but you can pass any angle into it, or a symbol theta if you want. That way you won't get the theta factors by default, but if in doubt, you can always get them. It seems that you prefer an infinite number of derivative operators while I still think it is best to define only two. The two approaches are equivalent, as I just pointed out. Even if you define only the two Wirtinger derivatives, nothing stops you from adding the theta factor and you also obtain the infinite number of derivatives. Let me know if you have a better proposal. After continued thinking about this and my current experiments in FriCAS I am still of the opinion that the best option is to implement just the Wirtinger derivative (only one since the other can be obtained by 'conjugate'). This has the affect of making the derivative of non-analytic functions subtly different than what you call the conventional real derivative (e.g. factor of 1/2 in derivative of 'abs'). I have decided that I would prefer to explain this difference to a less experienced user, rather than to get into a discussion of theta and directional derivatives. Cool,
[sage-devel] IMHO having sage-abuse publicly readable is a bad idea
I voted against the code of conduct, as I did not feel it was well thought out. Nothing has changed my mind about that - in fact the discussions just seem to reinforce my view. But that aside, I respect the decision of a majority. I always felt it was bad to have Sage developers making decisions based on submissions to sage-abuse. When William listed the 12 top contributors and suggested making them the people for sage-abuse, I said I wanted no part of it, despite I just got into that list as #`12. While I am all for openly sharing ideas and code, it is unreasonable to expect everything to be open. Since there is going to be a way of reporting someone for bad behavior, I think there is a valid argument for that being done privately. Having a list readable to anyone is likely to lead to considerable bad feeling for both those reporting abuse, and those accused of it. I know a few people wanted that list publicly viewable. I do understand their reasons, and there are some advantages in that. But there are some pretty serious disadvantages too. Soon I can see two lists being producing a) The number of times each individual has complained. This could be used to imply they are overly sensitive. b) The number of times an individual has been complained about. I think both would be bad. I wonder how man-hours have been spent on this code of conduct? Far too many I feel. Dave -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
I feel this is going nowhere... We should start with the assumption we all agree on something: we want the sage mailing list to be place where no one is bullied and where we can express our different point of views safely and with respect. I think we all want that whether we voted yes or no to the code of conduct itself. It is a sensitive matter because if we don't feel we have this, then it can affect our involvement into the project itself. I think everyone's actions so far toward the code of conduct has been motivated by this goal, on both side. I don't know who wrote the code of conduct that was proposed and, honestly, I don't really care. It was maybe a mistake to do it this way and I agree that Vincent's proposal to work on it on a wiki is better. But I don't think they did it with bad intentions. And seeing how things are now, I understand they don't want to say anything and to defend themselves against being a conspiracy, a secret police or something. Rather than pointing fingers on how things should have been done, and why were they done this way... I think we should try to find a solution to our problem which is the goal I stated: the sage mailing list to be place where no one is bullied and where we can express our different point of views safely and with respect. (Of course, this will never be perfect, the idea is to make our best) Some of us thought a code of conduct will help to reach this goal and there was a big debate on the first thread about this very question. There was a vote and even though the legitimacy of the vote is contested, it still says something: there are a quite a bunch of people (a majority of the voters) who think things are not good enough the way they are and wanted a code of conduct. So now, in the spirit of a consensus, what should we do? Keeping the code of conduct as it is is not good, it divides the community and some people feel excluded and disagree with the process. Leaving things as they were is not good either, as some people expressed in a vote that they wanted a change and they might complain if the vote is ignored (and once again, it's because they feel sage would be a better and safer place with the code). For the same reason, voting again on the same question is not good, as whatever the result is, some people will feel excluded. Is it possible to find a compromise on which people are mostly ok? For example, I proposed to have some guidelines instead of an actual code. And Vincent proposed to work on a wiki to make a better text. Also, the process itself was an issue. To those who contest the vote: in what condition would you accept whatever the result is? What would you propose to do? I hope this helps, and please remind again that we all want the same thing. Cheers Viviane PS: to answer to Nathann specifically, your tone was indeed completely ok and you were answered with some contempt. 2014-11-26 18:32 GMT+01:00 Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de: Hi Nathann, On 2014-11-26, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote: Volker, Tom: Please consider the tone of my first email, and the tone of your answers. Please consider the code of conduct that was just voted. Can you see why I may feel that you broke it clearly and cleanly at my expense ? If those rules are not only meant to apply to me, do you think the community should react to that ? I think I did react to that. If I didn't then I hope you accept my apology. Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: IMHO having sage-abuse publicly readable is a bad idea
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:01:14 AM UTC-8, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) wrote: While I am all for openly sharing ideas and code, it is unreasonable to expect everything to be open. Since there is going to be a way of reporting someone for bad behavior, I think there is a valid argument for that being done privately. Having a list readable to anyone is likely to lead to considerable bad feeling for both those reporting abuse, and those accused of it. I strongly agree with that. A report on sage-abuse will naturally be personal in nature, and will be indicative of a conflict. The information posted there, basically just by being posted there, has a high chance of being damaging to both parties (your name appearing there makes for a nice character reference, available to any hiring committee). For reasonably people who feel offended that is probably already enough to dissuade them from posting their complaint there in the first place. That leaves people posting complaints in an unreasonable mood, leading to a high probability that the content can be interpreted as slanderous, meaning that the other party will now ALSO feel offended. I think there is good precedent that effective de-escalation of conflicts is usually achieved with a high degree of confidential negotiation (it's already difficult to get North Korea to agree to 6-party talks. The chance of doing so if it's stipulated the negotiations are to be broadcast worldwide is absolutely zero). I think our main objective for having sage-abuse is to have an avenue to de-escalate a conflict/misunderstanding between community members? Even *IF* one party is found to be in serious breach of the accepted guidelines for communication, without the other party sharing some of the blame, the kind of public flogging that would constitute public sage-abuse arbitration won't have the desirable effect in my opinion. Public shaming might have have worked in medieval society, where people were basically captive to their community, but I have trouble seeing how the policing effect of that would translate to a desirable community in the setting of an open forum, where we'd hope that young people who make an error of judgement in how they communicate can learn from their mistakes and continue to be a productive member. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Indeed, on a second reading, my post was an overreaction. I apologize for that. I don't see where I broke it clearly and cleanly at [your] expense. If you'd like to tell me publicly or privately where I've misstepped, I'm not going to put up a fight. On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote: Volker, Tom: Please consider the tone of my first email, and the tone of your answers. Please consider the code of conduct that was just voted. Can you see why I may feel that you broke it clearly and cleanly at my expense ? If those rules are not only meant to apply to me, do you think the community should react to that ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: IMHO having sage-abuse publicly readable is a bad idea
My 2 cents, as short as possible: there could be sage-abuse and a hidden sage-abuse-intern. The only odd corner case happens, when someone who has been talked about on *-intern is some day later added to the *-intern list and reads about past discussions. Awkward! -- H -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] coeffs() coefficients()
Hello Sages Last week (?) I noticed that a program I wrote was making a mistake, because f.coeffs() and f.coefficients() return very different results: the former provides a dense representation (with 0's), the second a sparse one (no 0's, correlating with f.exponents()). I like this OK, but the help string isn't clear on this: the latter states merely, Return the coefficients of the monomials appearing in self; while the former states, Returns self.list(). The help on self.list() states merely, Returns a list with the coefficients of self. So the difference is that one states monomials *appearing* in self, while the other does not clarify that it gives the monomials appearing in self, which presumably means it includes monomials *not* appearing in self. I'm not good at these kinds of inferences, so this does not immediately convey dense or sparse representation, or not to me, anyway. I would propose the following: *f.coeffs?* should state something to the effect of, Returns all the coefficients of a dense representation of f. *f.coefficients?* should state something like, Returns all the coefficients of a sparse representation of f; that is, it returns only the non-zero coefficients, in a list correlated with f.exponents. (Notice the explicit statement of the correlation, reinforcing sparse representation.) *f.list?* should be mostly identical to f.coeffs? I'm willing to open a ticket author a patch to this effect, if at least one other person agrees here. john perry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Compilation Error sage 6.4.1 : installing package ecl-13.5.1.p0
Hi, A bit of a shot in the dark but could you try it from a folder with only ascii characters? Telechargements instead of Téléchargement. It is possible that the ecl bootstrap doesn't like those characters very much. Francois On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:58:31 Patxi Laborde Zubieta wrote: Hi, i tried to instal Sage on my computer by compiling the source, but it didn't work. To do that, i followed the instructions given in the webpage : http://www.sagemath.org/download-source.html Tell me if you need more information about my computer : cat /proc/version Linux version 3.16.0-25-generic (buildd@komainu) (gcc version 4.9.1 (Ubuntu 4.9.1-16ubuntu6) ) #33-Ubuntu SMP Tue Nov 4 12:06:54 UTC 2014 uname -a Linux patxi-HP-EliteBook-820-G1 3.16.0-25-generic #33-Ubuntu SMP Tue Nov 4 12:06:54 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux OS : Ubuntu 14.10 The log file is attached to the discussion (i don't know if it's the right word). The end of the log file : if [ -f CROSS-COMPILER ]; then \ ./CROSS-COMPILER compile; \ else \ ECLDIR=`pwd`/ ./ecl_min compile; \ fi ;*** Lisp core booted ECL (Embeddable Common Lisp) ;;; ;;; Welcome to bare.lsp. Let's bring this instance up! ;;; ;;; ;;; About to load lsp/load.lsp ;;; ;;; Loading src:lsp;export.lsp ;;; Unhandled lisp initialization error ;;; Message: FILE-ERROR ;;; Arguments: Internal or unrecoverable error in: Lisp initialization error. [2: No such file or directory] ;;; ECL C Backtrace ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x442726] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x42daaf] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x42dc04] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x40f880] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x42ea1b] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x42eb02] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x42eb2e] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x420f17] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x421773] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x440b4b] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x441043] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x4402e5] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x42dbeb] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x40f880] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x42ea1b] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x42ea68] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x4628b6] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x411df3] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x415ed5] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x41867d] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x461d67] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x40f880] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x46238f] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x411df3] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x415ed5] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x41867d] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x461d67] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x40f880] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x46238f] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x411df3] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x415ed5] ;;; ./ecl_min() [0x41867d] /bin/bash: line 4: 1086 Aborted (core dumped) ECLDIR=`pwd`/ ./ecl_min compile Makefile:72: recipe for target 'bin/ecl' failed make[4]: *** [bin/ecl] Error 134 make[4]: Leaving directory '/home/patxi/Téléchargements/sage-6.4.1/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ecl-13.5 .1.p0/src/build' Makefile:70: recipe for target 'all' failed make[3]: *** [all] Error 2 make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/patxi/Téléchargements/sage-6.4.1/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ecl-13.5 .1.p0/src' Error - Failed to build ECL ... exiting -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] coeffs() coefficients()
Hello John, As a very regular user of these functions, I think this is useful to have both (and luckily you don't want to remove one or the other!). For the documentation, I agree that it could and should be clearer! For your proposition, I am quite reluctant on using dense and sparse in the documentation: There exist dense and sparse representations of polynomials in Sage, and I wonder if this would not confuse users. Some may think that f.coeffs is for densely represented polynomials and f.coefficients for sparsely represented ones. I think one could use as inspiration for the documentation of f.coefficients() the case of multivariate polynomials. It states Return the nonzero coefficients of this polynomials in a list. I find this formulation clear and simple enough. It is not clear to me that one should add the part one the correlation with f.exponents() that you proposed. In the same vein, I would propose Return all the coefficients of f in a list, including the coefficients equal to zero for f.coeffs. Anyway, I agree and you can open a ticket, I'll be happy to review it! Cheers, Bruno P.S.: On a related note, I am procrastinating for some time now the opening of a ticket to make the interfaces of univariate polynomial rings and multivariate polynomial rings more consistent. For instance, the leading coefficient is f.leading_coefficient() in the former and f.lc() in the latter. Many other things like that are a bit frustrating... Le 26/11/2014 21:06, john_perry_usm a écrit : Hello Sages Last week (?) I noticed that a program I wrote was making a mistake, because f.coeffs() and f.coefficients() return very different results: the former provides a dense representation (with 0's), the second a sparse one (no 0's, correlating with f.exponents()). I like this OK, but the help string isn't clear on this: the latter states merely, Return the coefficients of the monomials appearing in self; while the former states, Returns self.list(). The help on self.list() states merely, Returns a list with the coefficients of self. So the difference is that one states monomials /appearing/ in self, while the other does not clarify that it gives the monomials appearing in self, which presumably means it includes monomials /not/ appearing in self. I'm not good at these kinds of inferences, so this does not immediately convey dense or sparse representation, or not to me, anyway. I would propose the following: *f.coeffs?* should state something to the effect of, Returns all the coefficients of a dense representation of f. *f.coefficients?* should state something like, Returns all the coefficients of a sparse representation of f; that is, it returns only the non-zero coefficients, in a list correlated with f.exponents. (Notice the explicit statement of the correlation, reinforcing sparse representation.) *f.list?* should be mostly identical to f.coeffs? I'm willing to open a ticket author a patch to this effect, if at least one other person agrees here. john perry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com mailto:sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: coeffs() coefficients()
Hi John, On 2014-11-26, john_perry_usm john.pe...@usm.edu wrote: I would propose the following: *f.coeffs?* should state something to the effect of, Returns all the coefficients of a dense representation of f. *f.coefficients?* should state something like, Returns all the coefficients of a sparse representation of f; that is, it returns only the non-zero coefficients, in a list correlated with f.exponents. (Notice the explicit statement of the correlation, reinforcing sparse representation.) *f.list?* should be mostly identical to f.coeffs? I'm willing to open a ticket author a patch to this effect, if at least one other person agrees here. It is about the documentation, without changing the code (so, no harm would result to applications). As usual, explicit is better then the need to infer the meaning of the doc. So, +1 from me. Cheers, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
On 2014-11-26, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote: --=_Part_1461_774968532.1417015681893 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_Part_1462_407798269.1417015681894 --=_Part_1462_407798269.1417015681894 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 2:41:32 PM UTC, vdelecroix wrote: I would have started any official text by Anybody is welcome to contribute or something like that. That sounds like a mission statement, not like a code of conduct. Really, much of the 2-week discussion was just cultural confusion about what a code of conduct is. Mostly from the non-Americans who have never seen such a thing. To the contary, I have seen way too much of this shit in my youth, FYI. Laws of the pioneers of the Soviet Union, Moral codex of a young builder of Communism, etc etc ad nauseum... And I understand your culture shock in that regard. I have had very unhappy memories vividly recalled by this thread. I have better things to do than to manage this, really... On the other side were people that are quite familiar with codes of conducts in other organizations and were just as rightfully confused that we can't even agree on being nice to each other. Also, during the lengthy discussion there were very few concrete actionable suggestions for changes. You were one of the few honorable exceptions when you put the text on the wiki to make changes. But so far there has only been one edit by yourself, so I think its fair to say that this did not gather much momentum. Still I would be happy if people can come up with relevant changes, but please keep it on the topic of a code of conduct. Even Volker was not able to vote because of his teaching. I could have voted, but I didn't. Mostly because I think that the whole discussion was more useful than a text tucked away on the web page when it comes to reminding everyone to stay civil. So I would have counted either outcome as a win... You can not state be nice as an order. The only thing which makes sense is to say welcome. Then why is it called Kant's categorial imperative, should we rephrase it as Kant's categorial suggestion? Its just an English language thing. If you want to argue about it please include other codes of conduct and explain why they are wrong, too. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] proposed amendment to code of conduct
Hello At least two of us who voted against the Code of Conduct think it a good idea to amend with a clause to the following effect: On the other hand, we have to remember that the very fact that Sage developers come from different cultures, backgrounds, and social circles, means we each have different customs of expression. Vigorous arguments on technical questions, even when characterized by sharp disagreement and legitimate criticism, is a sign of a healthy community, and not a hostile environment *per se*. While it is important to be sensitive, it is no less important to avoid oversensitivity. Having discussed it privately, I thought I'd throw it out for public comment. I'm pretty sure the second person won't mind self-identifying, but I modified it since the initial discussion, so I won't add the name here. john perry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Compilation Error sage 6.4.1 : installing package ecl-13.5.1.p0
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 9:17:27 PM UTC+1, François wrote: Hi, A bit of a shot in the dark but could you try it from a folder with only ascii characters? Telechargements instead of Téléchargement. It is possible that the ecl bootstrap doesn't like those characters very much. Francois IIRC Python does not like non ASCII stuff either. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hi, On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:28:33 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote: ... The motivation for suggesting the code was that quite a few people were unhappy with repeated negative comments that appeared in a long series of posts. ... A number of people have stopped contributing to sage because of these interactions, and there is a danger that others will stop. Discussions on sage-devel should not be demotivating for a developper/user but I wonder if the code of conduct is the way to make sure this principle is respected. It feels like the code of conduct is aiming at that (group of) person(s) and the meaning of adopting it goes beyond the text it contains. I feel like we should have that real open discussion instead and postpone the adoption of any code to a future moment when real discussions will be made. I have seen and read hard comments on the past on sage-devel, but since I had the occasion of meeting and discussing with many of the Sage developpers before, I was always able to, how to say, relativize the hardness knowing the people involved. This might be harder to do when we don't know the people involved or when the comment is directed to ourself... Sébastien -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] coeffs() coefficients()
Thanks, everyone. I agree with Bruno's improvement on my suggestion. I will do this in the next few days, but I am first traveling, I may need a reminder. I also think the interfaces between univariate multivariate polynomials should be brought more in line, but that seems like quite a bit of work. Perhaps we could somehow sketch a partial beginning with obvious improvements, implement that? john perry On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 9:29:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Grenet wrote: Hello John, As a very regular user of these functions, I think this is useful to have both (and luckily you don't want to remove one or the other!). For the documentation, I agree that it could and should be clearer! For your proposition, I am quite reluctant on using dense and sparse in the documentation: There exist dense and sparse representations of polynomials in Sage, and I wonder if this would not confuse users. Some may think that f.coeffs is for densely represented polynomials and f.coefficients for sparsely represented ones. I think one could use as inspiration for the documentation of f.coefficients() the case of multivariate polynomials. It states Return the nonzero coefficients of this polynomials in a list. I find this formulation clear and simple enough. It is not clear to me that one should add the part one the correlation with f.exponents() that you proposed. In the same vein, I would propose Return all the coefficients of f in a list, including the coefficients equal to zero for f.coeffs. Anyway, I agree and you can open a ticket, I'll be happy to review it! Cheers, Bruno P.S.: On a related note, I am procrastinating for some time now the opening of a ticket to make the interfaces of univariate polynomial rings and multivariate polynomial rings more consistent. For instance, the leading coefficient is f.leading_coefficient() in the former and f.lc() in the latter. Many other things like that are a bit frustrating... Le 26/11/2014 21:06, john_perry_usm a écrit : Hello Sages Last week (?) I noticed that a program I wrote was making a mistake, because f.coeffs() and f.coefficients() return very different results: the former provides a dense representation (with 0's), the second a sparse one (no 0's, correlating with f.exponents()). I like this OK, but the help string isn't clear on this: the latter states merely, Return the coefficients of the monomials appearing in self; while the former states, Returns self.list(). The help on self.list() states merely, Returns a list with the coefficients of self. So the difference is that one states monomials *appearing* in self, while the other does not clarify that it gives the monomials appearing in self, which presumably means it includes monomials *not* appearing in self. I'm not good at these kinds of inferences, so this does not immediately convey dense or sparse representation, or not to me, anyway. I would propose the following: *f.coeffs?* should state something to the effect of, Returns all the coefficients of a dense representation of f. *f.coefficients?* should state something like, Returns all the coefficients of a sparse representation of f; that is, it returns only the non-zero coefficients, in a list correlated with f.exponents. (Notice the explicit statement of the correlation, reinforcing sparse representation.) *f.list?* should be mostly identical to f.coeffs? I'm willing to open a ticket author a patch to this effect, if at least one other person agrees here. john perry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Slowness in comparing symbolic expressions
Incidentally I observe that Sympy has the same behavior, so we can't
just nick their factoring algorithm -- maybe some other package we can
try the same example to see if any of them handle it quickly?
best
Robert Dodier
Hi, I have tried the factorization with giacpy. (cf trac 12375). I had to
expexpand first before factoring and did this:
sage: from giacpy import libgiac
sage: x=libgiac('x')
sage: s=exp(1024*(x+1))-1
sage: %time s.expexpand().factor()
CPU times: user 0 ns, sys: 0 ns, total: 0 ns
Wall time: 1.32 ms
(exp(x+1)-1)*(exp(x+1)+1)*(exp(x+1)^2+1)*(exp(x+1)^4+1)*(exp(x+1)^8+1)*(exp(x+1)^16+1)*(exp(x+1)^32+1)*(exp(x+1)^64+1)*(exp(x+1)^128+1)*(exp(x+1)^256+1)*(exp(x+1)^512+1)
or
sage: %time s.expexpand().factor().expexpand()
CPU times: user 4 ms, sys: 0 ns, total: 4 ms
Wall time: 1.13 ms
(exp(x)*exp(1)-1)*(exp(x)*exp(1)+1)*((exp(x)*exp(1))^2+1)*((exp(x)*exp(1))^4+1)*((exp(x)*exp(1))^8+1)*((exp(x)*exp(1))^16+1)*((exp(x)*exp(1))^32+1)*((exp(x)*exp(1))^64+1)*((exp(x)*exp(1))^128+1)*((exp(x)*exp(1))^256+1)*((exp(x)*exp(1))^512+1)
best
Frederic
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
On 2014-11-26, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote: Hi, On 2014-11-26, Thierry sage-googlesu...@lma.metelu.net wrote: The problem is precisely here : requiring ethics from the other in an unethical way hurts. Exactly. And it seems to me that these consequences became visible in this discussion already. Indeed. I can also add that I feel bullied by things called code of conduct - probably it is my personal problem (originating from where I came from), but it is also so for people who feel bullied by criticism of their work. Such problems are not solved by codes of conduct, unfortunately. Dima Cheers, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Dear Nathann, On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 06:37:58PM -0800, Nathann Cohen wrote: Thus I am asking again, and politely despite my finding very disrespectful to have a legitimate question ignored: who was on the short list to write what is now our code of conduct, when was it initiated and in which conditions ? (yes, there are three parts to the question) If, as it is very likely, the question is ignored again, I will simply have to point to this thread whenever I need in the future to give my opinion on what democracy has become here. I agree, it's a legitimate question. Don't interpret too much the delay though: for example, in my case, it's simply that, with 16 hours of teaching per week those last weeks, even keeping up with the discussion is tricky :-) I was involved early on in the original private discussion. It grew out of a few people chatting together (you know the kind of ranting we could have had around a tea if we had been in the same spot). That was roughly one month ago. We were worried about discussions on the mailing lists occasionally hurting feelings, and how this was turning some people away, and on occasions ruining the productivity. We started to wonder what we could do about it, besides having private discussions with the persons involved to cool things down as we had tried. We then got in touch with a few others to see if it was just us, or whether this was a more general feeling. We then became convinced that there really was some issue that deserved a discussion on sage-devel. But for such an open discussion to be productive, we believed it was best to have a concrete basis to build on. So we started by looking around to see how this kind of situations was handled in other communities. It appeared that the most common approach was to design a Code of Conduct. So we prepared a draft thereof, as an open-minded starting point for discussions. Of course I can't easily prove it; but I can assure you that this was all done in good faith and with good intentions. We could possibly have done a better job: calling for a vote later, making the call for amending the text more explicit, guessing that people would interpret code as law, which was certainly not the intention. Well, that's all easy to say in retrospect, but really it's hard to organize such discussions. And unpleasant to be called various names when trying, maybe clumsily but honestly, to make our community a better place. Lastly: I believe nobody in those who originated the discussion cares about the specific wording. I also assume most don't really care whether it's a code of conduct or a guidelines or something similar. I for example voluntarily did not vote, as none of the two options reflected my current point of view which I stated earlier. Cheers, Nicolas PS: I used we above. I indeed have supported the process from start to end. On the other hand, I would not want to take undue credit: the bulk of the work (looking around, writing a draft, ...) was actually achieved by others, and one person in particular that can be proud of it. This was a tricky and time consuming chore which I do see as a caring gift to the community. I obviously won't give myself the names of the other participants of the private discussion. It's their decision to step out, or not. -- Nicolas M. Thiéry Isil nthi...@users.sf.net http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Slowness in comparing symbolic expressions
On 2014-11-26, Han Frederic h...@math.jussieu.fr wrote:
Hi, I have tried the factorization with giacpy. (cf trac 12375).
I had to expexpand first before factoring and did this:
sage: from giacpy import libgiac
sage: x=libgiac('x')
sage: s=exp(1024*(x+1))-1
sage: %time s.expexpand().factor()
CPU times: user 0 ns, sys: 0 ns, total: 0 ns
Wall time: 1.32 ms
(exp(x+1)-1)*(exp(x+1)+1)*(exp(x+1)^2+1)*(exp(x+1)^4+1)*(exp(x+1)^8+1)*(exp(x+1)^16+1)*(exp(x+1)^32+1)*(exp(x+1)^64+1)*(exp(x+1)^128+1)*(exp(x+1)^256+1)*(exp(x+1)^512+1)
That's terrific. Do you know anything about the implementation of Giac?
I downloaded the source code and after poking around a bit, I can't
tell where factoring such an expression actually occurs. Does Giac
handle that itself, or does it punt to PARI or something else?
What is the effect of expexpand in the example above?
Thanks for any information,
Robert Dodier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: proposed amendment to code of conduct
At least two of us who voted against the Code of Conduct think it a good idea to amend with a clause to the following effect: I think that it is a good clause, and I hope that the document to which it could eventually belong will be a Guidelines one and not a code. It says what you can expect on sage-devel when writing there, and that you should not always take what is being said personnally. It also discards from the current code the idea that you will be judged not for what you say but for how you say it. Actually, re-reading the current code of conduct, it is pretty depressing. The third line is about Communication problems and unhappiness... Basically what it says cannot help much: everybody tries to be patient, and friendly, and considerate.. Having this in a code does not seem to lead anywhere further. The code should describe what sage-devel feels like, and in such a way it will be a good disclaimer to tell newcomers what to expect and how to react. If it tries to change how we already behave, well, it is a code or a law. I do not know what is the procedure now: amendments are discussed on a thread, and then added to the wiki page if people agree with it ? http://wiki.sagemath.org/SageCommunityProposal Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Bug in abs(I*x).diff(x)
On 26 November 2014 at 12:58, Ondřej Čertík ondrej.cer...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Bill Page bill.p...@newsynthesis.org wrote: Does it help if a say the operations are defined symbolically? All I want is if you can give me an algorithm of your approach in sufficient detail, so that it can be implemented by me on a computer. And by your approach, I mean an approach, where conjugate(log(x)) = log(conjugate(x)) for all x. I am sorry, we seem to be having some trouble communicating. Is that something infecting this email list? :) Making conjugate(log(x)) = log(conjugate(x)) for all x is trivial so long as it is treated symbolically: the 'conjugate' operation is just defined to rewrite itself (auto-simplify) when applied to any operand of the form log(_), so 'conjugate(log(_))' is evaluated as 'log(conjugate(_))', where _ stands for any element of the domain Expression. This is what I meant when I said it was considered true by definition, i.e. by definition of the symbolic 'conjugate' operation. Exactly the same sort of thing happens when the 'conjugate' operation acts on 'conjugate' so that 'conjugate(conjugate(x))' is simply rewritten as 'x'. I have provided all the details of the algorithm (B). In approach (B), it is not true that conjugate(log(x)) = log(conjugate(x)) for all x. This equation (when conjugate(log(x)) = log(conjugate(x)) holds) started this whole discussion. That log(a*b) = log(a) + log(b) is considerably less trivial that the case of 'conjugate'. From my point of view that is what actually started this branch of the fabric of this discussion. That is where 'normalize' comes in. So I was trying to understand your approach how to make this hold for all x, and I suggested various ways how maybe it could be implemented, and to most of it you said that's not how FriCAS does it. At this point I don't have any more ideas how it could be done, so I don't know how to implement your approach. Which is sad -- even though I am not advocating for your approach, I wanted to really understand it, so that I can make my own opinion on the pros and cons. Thank you for attempting to understand. I think I only used the phrase that's not how FriCAS does it in the context of multi-valued functions. My point is that FriCAS makes no attempt to evaluate a multi-valued function symbolically. But FriCAS does rewrite expressions involving mutli-valued functions in some cases automatically and in others when asked to do so by operators like 'normalize'. Maybe we need to define exactly what operations we are talking about. Sure. Let's just stick to one example, let me just copy paste it from my previous email: from cmath import log a = -1 b = -1 log(a*b) 0j log(a)+log(b) 6.283185307179586j def arg(x): return log(x).imag ... from math import floor, pi I = 1j log(a)+log(b)+2*pi*I*floor(( pi-arg(a)-arg(b))/(2*pi)) 0j As you confirmed, even if you evaluate this in FriCAS, log(a*b) is not equal to log(a) + log(b), when a=b=-1. Yes, I showed that as expected this was not equal when 'log' is evaluated in a numeric domain but I am talking about a domain constructed by 'Expression' which is a symbolic domain. However, you claim that symbolically it is true that log(a*b) = log(a) - log(b) for all a and b and you provided a FriCAS function normalize that does it, No not exactly. I am sorry that I did not express myself more clearly. Actually if I evaluate test ( log(a*b) = log(a)+log(b) ) FriCAS returns 'false' since no automatic simplifications apply here and these are obviously to different expressions. What I showed was that normalize(log(a*b)-log(a)-log(b)) returns 0. but you said that for deeper understanding you would need to consult Waldek Hebisch. Can you explain the discrepancy/inconsistency? Well, um, what I tried to say was that for a deeper understanding of 'normalize' we would have to either read the source code of 'normalize' or talk with Waldek who as studied the source code more carefully and throughly than I have. 'normalize' was written by Manuel Bronstein. There is no specific documentation except for that contained in the source code: https://github.com/fricas/fricas/blob/master/src/algebra/efstruc.spad#L83 and unfortunately Manuel Bronstein is dead. Bronstein did however publish several books and numerous articles. In particular 'normalize' is part of his implementation of the Risch structure theorem. E.g. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=74566 As I recall there was some Google Summer of Code work on sympy related to this. But Waldek has made a number if important recent changes to this package. How exactly are the operations in log(a*b) = log(a) - log(b) defined, so that this equation holds, even though when you put in a=b=-1, you get a different number on the LHS and RHS, as confirmed by FriCAS? My admittedly primitive understanding of how 'normalize' operates in this case is
Re: [sage-devel] When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hello, I agree, it's a legitimate question. Don't interpret too much the delay though: for example, in my case, it's simply that, with 16 hours of teaching per week those last weeks, even keeping up with the discussion is tricky :-) I understand. Actually, some persons raised the very same objection to the vote which just took place over two days, a short time indeed. Would you agree to say that its result should not be interpreted for this reason ? I also understand that nobody in your short-list could feel entitled to give the others' name, but this can be solved easily: would you be willing to send them an email and ask whether they object to this request ? Somebody could then answer this question, or tell us that some members do not want to reveal their identity. You told us about how you wanted to do avoid hurt feelings, turning some people away and ruining the productivity. Indeed, what has been happening since this code of conduct was first mentionned should be avoided. You are probably right also when you say that it was useful to speak about it among yourselves in order to give us something solid to build upon. But what was your aim by sending it first to Volker, to have him forward it to sage-devel ? This, I do not understand. It is not so bad as it can still be done now: Vincent showed the way by creating a wiki page that anybody can edit, and we sure can debate all we want on sage-devel. This does not mean that your work has been pointless: you took the time to discuss between yourselves without having to fight off counter-arguments immediately, you built a logic. But not all were present, and by not giving others the time you had to discuss it, it can be received as imposed by a small group upon everybody. Also, please consider that contributing something that big to Sage all of a sudden is like a patch bomb. You are always at risk of noticing some flaw during the review that may require to rewrite everything. In the present context, if nobody is exactly against the guidelines you designed, some oppose the principle of a code, of people denouncing others, or of selected persons having the final say. Instead of writing a law meant to change the behaviour of people on sage-devel, what about writing some kind of spoiler alert to warn people about what they might see ? --- Beware, for our developpers have very strong feelings about their work. It is important to them, and if they get loud remember that their eyes are stuck on the code, and that they want to build something they can be proud of. On sage-devel, we talk about code. Most of the time, you have no reason to take anything personally. At other times, trust your common sense. Answering a post tomorrow instead of right now often does the trick. --- We can use somebody else's sense of humor as many here found mine lacking, but what about this principle ? No rules, no police, no mails sent to sage-abuse and no 'chosen people', but something to let new contributors know what to expect ? As for the the problems met by the current developpers, Thierry is right to say that the way out is not to build a law that can be used to declare one as innocent and the other as guilty. Of course I can't easily prove it; but I can assure you that this was all done in good faith and with good intentions. We could possibly have done a better job: calling for a vote later, making the call for amending the text more explicit, guessing that people would interpret code as law, which was certainly not the intention. There is time to do it now if you like. We can have another vote to re-write this code (now adopted) as a community, or possibly the 'yes'-voters could be convinced that it is the best way to handle this as a community. But we have all the time in the world to do this again if we feel the need to. And unpleasant to be called various names when trying, maybe clumsily but honestly, to make our community a better place. I know exactly how you feel. I have been trying to remind peole for two years of wrong results returned by Sage, I tried to fix it myself many many times only to find out I was not competent on this part of the code. I also tried to say that the way findstat was implemented in Sage could be less intrusive, and there were others examples. And yet I took this code of conduct to be against me even though I tried, clumsily and honestly, to make our code a better code. Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Viviane Pons vivianep...@gmail.com wrote: I feel this is going nowhere... We should start with the assumption we all agree on something: we want the sage mailing list to be place where no one is bullied and where we can express our different point of views safely and with respect. I think we all want that whether we voted yes or no to the code of conduct itself. It is a sensitive matter because if we don't feel we have this, then it can affect our involvement into the project itself. I think everyone's actions so far toward the code of conduct has been motivated by this goal, on both side. I don't know who wrote the code of conduct that was proposed and, honestly, I don't really care. It was maybe a mistake to do it this way and I agree that Vincent's proposal to work on it on a wiki is better. But I don't think they did it with bad intentions. And seeing how things are now, I understand they don't want to say anything and to defend themselves against being a conspiracy, a secret police or something. Rather than pointing fingers on how things should have been done, and why were they done this way... I think we should try to find a solution to our problem which is the goal I stated: the sage mailing list to be place where no one is bullied and where we can express our different point of views safely and with respect. (Of course, this will never be perfect, the idea is to make our best) Some of us thought a code of conduct will help to reach this goal and there was a big debate on the first thread about this very question. There was a vote and even though the legitimacy of the vote is contested, it still says something: there are a quite a bunch of people (a majority of the voters) who think things are not good enough the way they are and wanted a code of conduct. So now, in the spirit of a consensus, what should we do? Keeping the code of conduct as it is is not good, it divides the community and some people feel excluded and disagree with the process. Leaving things as they were is not good either, as some people expressed in a vote that they wanted a change and they might complain if the vote is ignored (and once again, it's because they feel sage would be a better and safer place with the code). For the same reason, voting again on the same question is not good, as whatever the result is, some people will feel excluded. +1 for focusing on what to do in the future, rather than mistakes made in the past. Is it possible to find a compromise on which people are mostly ok? For example, I proposed to have some guidelines instead of an actual code. I, personally, would be in favor of this, which wasn't really an option in the vote (which felt like a false dilemma between accept the status quo and accept that code). And Vincent proposed to work on a wiki to make a better text. Also, the process itself was an issue. To those who contest the vote: in what condition would you accept whatever the result is? What would you propose to do? Consensus is better than voting, but is sometimes hard to find when there is a bimodal (or more) distribution of opinions. I'd take the time to craft a better text, then put it up for another vote. (Despite the fact that open source projects are not democracies, it's hard to assign weights...so I don't know any better). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Viviane Pons vivianep...@gmail.com wrote: I feel this is going nowhere... We should start with the assumption we all agree on something: we want the sage mailing list to be place where no one is bullied and where we can express our different point of views safely and with respect. I think we all want that whether we voted yes or no to the code of conduct itself. It is a sensitive matter because if we don't feel we have this, then it can affect our involvement into the project itself. I think everyone's actions so far toward the code of conduct has been motivated by this goal, on both side. I don't know who wrote the code of conduct that was proposed and, honestly, I don't really care. It was maybe a mistake to do it this way and I agree that Vincent's proposal to work on it on a wiki is better. But I don't think they did it with bad intentions. And seeing how things are now, I understand they don't want to say anything and to defend themselves against being a conspiracy, a secret police or something. Rather than pointing fingers on how things should have been done, and why were they done this way... I think we should try to find a solution to our problem which is the goal I stated: the sage mailing list to be place where no one is bullied and where we can express our different point of views safely and with respect. (Of course, this will never be perfect, the idea is to make our best) Some of us thought a code of conduct will help to reach this goal and there was a big debate on the first thread about this very question. There was a vote and even though the legitimacy of the vote is contested, it still says something: there are a quite a bunch of people (a majority of the voters) who think things are not good enough the way they are and wanted a code of conduct. So now, in the spirit of a consensus, what should we do? Keeping the code of conduct as it is is not good, it divides the community and some people feel excluded and disagree with the process. Leaving things as they were is not good either, as some people expressed in a vote that they wanted a change and they might complain if the vote is ignored (and once again, it's because they feel sage would be a better and safer place with the code). For the same reason, voting again on the same question is not good, as whatever the result is, some people will feel excluded. +1 for focusing on what to do in the future, rather than mistakes made in the past. Is it possible to find a compromise on which people are mostly ok? For example, I proposed to have some guidelines instead of an actual code. I, personally, would be in favor of this, which wasn't really an option in the vote (which felt like a false dilemma between accept the status quo and accept that code). And Vincent proposed to work on a wiki to make a better text. Also, the process itself was an issue. To those who contest the vote: in what condition would you accept whatever the result is? What would you propose to do? Consensus is better than voting, but is sometimes hard to find when there is a bimodal (or more) distribution of opinions. I'd take the time to craft a better text, then put it up for another vote. (Despite the fact that open source projects are not democracies, it's hard to assign weights...so I don't know any better). http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
On Thursday, 27 November 2014 17:18:07 UTC+11, Nathann Cohen wrote: Beware, for our developpers have very strong feelings about their work. It is important to them, and if they get loud remember that their eyes are stuck on the code, and that they want to build something they can be proud of. On sage-devel, we talk about code. Most of the time, you have no reason to take anything personally. At other times, trust your common sense. Answering a post tomorrow instead of right now often does the trick. Speaking only for myself, it is exactly this sort of post that I would like to avoid. Why can't the person who gets loud taker a breather, calm down and post something more sensible tomorrow? I think it is hypocritical to say that it is OK for some one to write loud posts and then to ask anyone who gets put off by this to take a break. If the loud person was considerate from the start none of this would be necessary. Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hello ! Speaking only for myself, it is exactly this sort of post that I would like to avoid. Why can't the person who gets loud taker a breather, calm down and post something more sensible tomorrow? I think it is hypocritical to say that it is OK for some one to write loud posts and then to ask anyone who gets put off by this to take a break. If the loud person was considerate from the start none of this would be necessary. True, but if your only way to enforce that is to create laws, judges and sanctions then it may be even worse (that happens right now). What you can do at zero cost is say to everybody how to interpret what is happening. Also, what is felt as loud by one is not loud for another, so you cannot just hit everybody whenever that happens. Different cultures.. We certainly saw that in the recent posts. Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: When/by who/how was the code of conduct initiated ?
Hi Andrew, On 2014-11-27, Andrew andrew.mat...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking only for myself, it is exactly this sort of post that I would like to avoid. Why can't the person who gets loud taker a breather, calm down and post something more sensible tomorrow? Because s/he is, for whatever reason, not able to. S/he is doing a mistake. But this can not be an excuse for people to commit the same mistake, even though they would be able to avoid it. I think it is hypocritical to say that it is OK for some one to write loud posts and then to ask anyone who gets put off by this to take a break. If the loud person was considerate from the start none of this would be necessary. I think it is hypocritical to say that it is OK for anyone to become loud and inconsiderate if one other person was. Cheers, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
