[sage-devel] Re: abs(-pi)=-pi

On Friday, 13 November 2015 11:43:42 UTC, Anthony Wickstead wrote: > > I have just discovered that in Sage 6.7 abs(-pi)=-pi, > abs(-sqrt(2))=-sqrt(2) etc. Previous version I used was 6.2 and I am fairly > sure it was not the case then. Can't find earlier reference to this bug. > 6.7 is old.

[sage-devel] Re: abs(-pi)=-pi

Glad to hear it is fixed. This arose in a university computer lab setting where updates to the image are only feasible annually. Won't get new version running until next autumn! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe

[sage-devel] Re: Error installing package conway_polynomials-0.4.p0

On Friday, 13 November 2015 03:41:05 UTC, Yueru Sun wrote: > > Alternatively, is it possible to find prebuilt binaries of older versions > of Sage somewhere? The official site only has binaries of the current > version; I also googled for them with no luck. > It will be a struggle to work

[sage-devel] abs(-pi)=-pi

I have just discovered that in Sage 6.7 abs(-pi)=-pi, abs(-sqrt(2))=-sqrt(2) etc. Previous version I used was 6.2 and I am fairly sure it was not the case then. Can't find earlier reference to this bug. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel"

[sage-devel] Re: random seed is not renewed for parallel functions

shouldn't each thread run its own random number generator? On Friday, 13 November 2015 11:11:57 UTC, Sébastien Labbé wrote: > > Is this a feature or a bug? > > sage: @parallel > : def f(a): > : return a+random() > : > sage: [v for _,v in f(range(10))] > [0.20150303719720475, >

[sage-devel] MPIR division bug fixed

Hi all, A while ago the Sage project reported a bug in basecase division in MPIR on 32 bit machines [1]. Since then we found a rare bug in basecase division on a 64 bit machine, likely caused by the same issue. Fortunately most modern x86_64 machines were tuned to not use the broken

[sage-devel] Re: [mpir-devel] Re: MPIR division bug fixed

Not in the published divide-and-conquer algorithm, no. There was a bug in the implementation of the new basecase algorithm, which was not published, nor very important. On most machines it was switched off. And even on the machines where it was used (with the exception of itanium where it seemed

[sage-devel] Re: MPIR division bug fixed

Hi Bill, Do you mean there was an issue in your new division algorithm? Best, JP -- 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] Re: MPIR division bug fixed

Brian and I are now happy with the state of things for 2.7.1, so I will put up the release when I get the chance, possibly over the weekend, Monday at the latest (barring unforeseen interruptions). Bill. On 13 November 2015 at 16:08, Bill Hart wrote: > Hi all, > >

[sage-devel] Re: [mpir-devel] Re: MPIR division bug fixed

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-8, Bill Hart wrote: > > Not in the published divide-and-conquer algorithm, no. > > There was a bug in the implementation of the new basecase algorithm, which > was not published, nor very important. On most machines it was switched > off. And even

Re: [sage-devel] random seed is not renewed for parallel functions

On Friday, November 13, 2015, Sébastien Labbé wrote: > Is this a feature or a bug? > > Feature - the calls all happen at once starting with the same state of sage including the random state. > > sage: @parallel > : def f(a): > : return a+random() > : > sage:

[sage-devel] Re: [mpir-devel] Re: MPIR division bug fixed

On 13 November 2015 at 21:41, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 12:34:41 PM UTC-8, Bill Hart wrote: >> >> >> >> On 13 November 2015 at 19:10, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:40:27 AM

Re: [sage-devel] random seed is not renewed for parallel functions

On Friday, 13 November 2015 18:02:14 UTC, William wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 13, 2015, Sébastien Labbé > wrote: > >> Is this a feature or a bug? >> >> > Feature - the calls all happen at once starting with the same state of > sage including the random state. > how

Re: [sage-devel] random seed is not renewed for parallel functions

> Feature - the calls all happen at once starting with the same state of >> sage including the random state. >> >> > > how one would then run a randomised algorithm in parallel? (e.g. testing > property with random input) > In such a case one certainly need something orthogonal to this. >

[sage-devel] MPIR-2.7.1 released

Hi all, We have released MPIR-2.7.1 to fix some rare bugs and a few other issues: * Fix bug in Karatsuba assembly code on Windows * Fix bug in basecase division code * Add some missing information in AUTHORS * Travis continuous integration * Add building of tests to command line build for

[sage-devel] Re: What in Sage uses Boost ? And who maintains it ?

I ported 1.58.0 headers in Trac #19582 , which needs review. HTH, __ Emmanuel Charpentier Le vendredi 13 novembre 2015 07:38:53 UTC+1, Emmanuel Charpentier a écrit : > > FYI, > > Just for the hell of it, I *did* update boost_cropped to 1.59.0 in a >

[sage-devel] Re: [mpir-devel] Re: MPIR division bug fixed

On 13 November 2015 at 19:10, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-8, Bill Hart wrote: >> >> Not in the published divide-and-conquer algorithm, no. >> >> There was a bug in the implementation of the new basecase algorithm, >> which was

Re: [sage-devel] random seed is not renewed for parallel functions

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:53:25 PM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote: > > I would think this is the kind of thing that is worth documenting > somewhere. > Particularly because the behaviour depends on the underlying parallellization mechanism: @parallel(p_iter="multiprocessing") def f(a):

Re: [sage-devel] random seed is not renewed for parallel functions

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:18:07 PM UTC-8, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > how one would then run a randomised algorithm in parallel? (e.g. testing > property with random input) > In such a case one certainly need something orthogonal to this. > Something like this? @parallel > def f(a): >

[sage-devel] Re: [mpir-devel] Re: MPIR division bug fixed

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 12:34:41 PM UTC-8, Bill Hart wrote: > > > > On 13 November 2015 at 19:10, Jean-Pierre Flori > wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-8, Bill Hart wrote: >>> >>> Not in the published divide-and-conquer algorithm, no.

[sage-devel] Re: [mpir-devel] Re: MPIR division bug fixed

Incidentally, whilst removing the basecase implementation I found and removed a bug in the asymptotically fast division code. Or rather, removing the basecase implementation also removed that bug. However, this could not have been what caused the bug we observed in the basecase code. Bill. On 13

[sage-devel] Re: should "foo?" print TESTS: blocks or omit them?

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 2:01:17 AM UTC-8, Volker Braun wrote: > > I don't really care about whether to display TESTS:: or not, but we really > should have a proper parser for our docstring style. This ticket adds yet > another regex hack. E.g. sphinxcontrib-napoleon is an example for

Re: [sage-devel] Error installing package conway_polynomials-0.4.p0

This worked like a charm and I succeeded with the build. Thank you very much! On 13 November 2015 at 00:30, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2015-11-12 19:27, Yueru Sun wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I was compiling sage 6.4(it is unfortunately the only version supported >> by a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Error installing package conway_polynomials-0.4.p0

At first I tried to use the package, Flagmatic-dev, in Sage 6.9, only to run into "Exception AttributeError: "'int' object has no attribute 'parent'"" on multiple critical occasions. The author of the package kindly informed me that it is meant to be used only in Sage 6.4, since signatures of some

[sage-devel] random seed is not renewed for parallel functions

Is this a feature or a bug? sage: @parallel : def f(a): : return a+random() : sage: [v for _,v in f(range(10))] [0.20150303719720475, 1.2015030371972046, 2.2015030371972046, 3.2015030371972046, 4.201503037197205, 5.201503037197205, 6.201503037197205, 7.201503037197205,

[sage-devel] Re: abs(-pi)=-pi

On Friday, 13 November 2015 11:59:29 UTC, Anthony Wickstead wrote: > > > Glad to hear it is fixed. This arose in a university computer lab setting > where updates to the image are only feasible annually. Won't get new > version running until next autumn! > perhaps abs(-pi)=-pi gives you a