Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Super Module and Clifford Algebra

Hi Travis, > > in super_modules_with_basis.py, you hide the method > >_even_odd_on_basis > > As a minor consequence, there is a void ParentMethod class in the > > documentation. > > Except for very technical methods, the usage in categories is to have the > > on_basis (se eg:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: problem/ possible bug with picewise constant functions

Please review http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14801 Regards, -- 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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: problem/ possible bug with picewise constant functions

Please review http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14801 Regards, -- 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

[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Super Module and Clifford Algebra

Hey Florent, Sorry for taking so long to get to this (in honesty, I forgot about answering). > > Now a question for Travis: > > in super_modules_with_basis.py, you hide the method >_even_odd_on_basis > As a minor consequence, there is a void ParentMethod class in the > documentation.

[sage-combinat-devel] Re: ask-sage question: tensor product of polynomial algebras

Hey Samuel, I don't think there currently is a general implementation for tensor products of rings/algebras. Although you can hack together a small subclass of CombinatorialFreeModule: class PolynomialAlgebra(CombinatorialFreeModule): def __init__(self, base_ring, names):

[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Defining basis keys for combinatorial free modules

Hey Simon, You might want to use FreeMonoid(index_set=S) as your basis indexing set. Although you will need 7.2.beta5 to do the iteration: sage: S = (1,2) sage: F = FreeMonoid(index_set=S) sage: it = iter(F) sage: [next(it) for _ in range(10)] [1, F[1], F[2], F[1]*F[2], F[2]^2, F[1]^2,

[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Defining basis keys for combinatorial free modules

I'm not sure if I answer your question properly with this snippet of code, but it might help point you to the right structures: sage: def f(n): : for S in Subsets(range(1,n+1)): : for pi in Permutations(list(S)): : yield tuple(pi) sage: list(f(2)) [(),

Re: [sage-devel] Re: problem/ possible bug with picewise constant functions

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Pablo De Napoli wrote: > Many thanks Nils for your help. > > I think that is important that sage has consistent and easy to use > interfaces, that functions do what most people would expect them to do > at every place. Specially if we want it to

Re: [sage-devel] problem/ possible bug with picewise constant functions

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Pablo De Napoli wrote: > Hi, > > I'm having trouble with some piecewise constant functions. > > Suppose that I define > > f=Piecewise ([([0,1],0),([1,2],x-1)]) > > Then f.integral() works as expected, but f.derivative() will fail with > >

[sage-devel] Re: problem/ possible bug with picewise constant functions

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:44:19 AM UTC-7, Francisco Pena wrote: > > Hi, > > I believe the solution of Nils using SR(0) is very elegant, but it cannot > be applied in every case. For example, when the piecewise is created by > another method (trapezoid): > > f = Piecewise([[(-1,1),

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delete old optional packages

It looks like this referred to mpi4py, which has already been converted to a new-style package. John On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 11:22:04 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote: > > Actually, it looks like this address might be better. > David > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:19 PM, David Roe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delete old optional packages

Actually, it looks like this address might be better. David On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:19 PM, David Roe wrote: > I've CCed Soroosh. I'm not sure which package you were referring to. > David > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:58 AM, mmarco wrote: > >> I have

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delete old optional packages

I've CCed Soroosh. I'm not sure which package you were referring to. David On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:58 AM, mmarco wrote: > I have emailed the maintainers whose email address I could locate. someone > knows how can I contact Michael Abshoff, Soroosh Yazdani > or Mitesh

[sage-devel] Re: problem/ possible bug with picewise constant functions

Hi, I believe the solution of Nils using SR(0) is very elegant, but it cannot be applied in every case. For example, when the piecewise is created by another method (trapezoid): f = Piecewise([[(-1,1), sin(x^2)]]) t = f.trapezoid(3) Here t has a constant part in (-1/3,1/3): Piecewise

Re: [sage-devel] Adding __future__ imports in all .py(x) files

+1. I've been really hoping for any movement toward py3. Thanks!! On Thursday, April 21, 2016, Volker Braun wrote: > +1 > > As others mentioned, there are at least 3 similar cases where future > imports should be used: > > * The sage library (this thread) > * The

[sage-devel] Re: Adding __future__ imports in all .py(x) files

+1 As others mentioned, there are at least 3 similar cases where future imports should be used: * The sage library (this thread) * The preparser * Doctest runner I'm in favor of either. A preparser change should probably coincide with a major version change. On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at

Re: [sage-devel] Delete old optional packages

Similarly remove M Patel for similar reasons. On Thursday, April 21, 2016, mmarco wrote: > Ok, so that is a good reason to delete those packages, unless somebody > steps in as a maintainer. > > El jueves, 21 de abril de 2016, 11:07:11 (UTC+2), John Cremona escribió: >> >> On

[sage-devel] http://www.sagemath.org/doc/installation/sagetex.html broken

This link is used in SageTeX. Can it be fixed? Currently it results in 404 at http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/installation/sagetex.html If it cannot be fixed, then please say on #19072 or here what it should become. Dima -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delete old optional packages

Ok, so that is a good reason to delete those packages, unless somebody steps in as a maintainer. El jueves, 21 de abril de 2016, 11:07:11 (UTC+2), John Cremona escribió: > > On 21 April 2016 at 09:58, mmarco wrote: > > I have emailed the maintainers whose email address I

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Adding __future__ imports in all .py(x) files

On 2016-04-21 11:04, Simon King wrote: I suppose it would be enough if SageMath would do the "from __future__" imports at startup. In that way, the doc tests would automatically have to comply with Python 3, isn't it? No, future imports work on a file-by-file basis. Also, the parsing of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Delete old optional packages

On 21 April 2016 at 09:58, mmarco wrote: > I have emailed the maintainers whose email address I could locate. someone > knows how can I contact Michael Abshoff, Soroosh Yazdani > or Mitesh Patel? Michael Abshoff was heavily involved in Sage in the early years and so got put as

[sage-combinat-devel] ask-sage question: tensor product of polynomial algebras

Dear sage-combinat-devel, maybe someone on this list would know the answer to this question on ask-sage http://ask.sagemath.org/question/33165/tensor-product-of-polynomial-algebras/ Best, Samuel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

[sage-devel] Re: Adding __future__ imports in all .py(x) files

Hi Daniel, On 2016-04-21, Daniel Krenn wrote: > What about doctests? Manually add these import there everywhere? Or is > there a "better way"? I suppose it would be enough if SageMath would do the "from __future__" imports at startup. In that way, the doc tests would automatically

Re: [sage-devel] Adding __future__ imports in all .py(x) files

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 9:54:32 AM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2016-04-21 10:47, Daniel Krenn wrote: > > What about doctests? > > Doctests are a different issue. I would prefer to *not* change doctests, > because doctests are supposed to mimic the Sage command line. If the >

[sage-devel] Re: Delete old optional packages

Hi Volker, On 2016-04-20, Volker Braun wrote: > Since we once again had a thread about the pains of accidentally installing > an old-style optional package, I propose to delete them except the > following instead of opening a trac ticket for each one once something bad

[sage-devel] Re: Delete old optional packages

I have emailed the maintainers whose email address I could locate. someone knows how can I contact Michael Abshoff, Soroosh Yazdani or Mitesh Patel? El miércoles, 20 de abril de 2016, 19:04:09 (UTC+2), mmarco escribió: > > Wow, It was easy to get that promotion! > > > El miércoles, 20 de

Re: [sage-devel] Adding __future__ imports in all .py(x) files

On 2016-04-21 10:47, Daniel Krenn wrote: What about doctests? Doctests are a different issue. I would prefer to *not* change doctests, because doctests are supposed to mimic the Sage command line. If the command line does not have __future__ imports, the doctests also should not. -- You

Re: [sage-devel] Adding __future__ imports in all .py(x) files

On 2016-04-21 10:33, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > Hello, > > concerning the porting of Sagelib(*) to Python 3, I propose to > eventually add > > from __future__ import print_function, division, absolute_import, > unicode_literals > > to *every* .py(x) file in Sagelib (even those modules which don't

[sage-devel] Re: disk space

Hi, Building Sage 7.2.beta4 from source after a fresh git clone results in a sage root directory of 5.9 GB on Ubuntu 15.10. Best regards, Eric. Le jeudi 21 avril 2016 03:09:23 UTC+2, William a écrit : > > Hi, > > How much disk space is it supposed to take to download and build Sage >

[sage-devel] Adding __future__ imports in all .py(x) files

Hello, concerning the porting of Sagelib(*) to Python 3, I propose to eventually add from __future__ import print_function, division, absolute_import, unicode_literals to *every* .py(x) file in Sagelib (even those modules which don't print, don't divide, don't import and don't have

[sage-combinat-devel] Defining basis keys for combinatorial free modules

Hi all, I am having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around how I am supposed to define the basis keys that are required for creating a combinatorial free module. The kind of basis keys with which I would like to label the basis of my free module is the set of "all tuples, of any length,

[sage-devel] Example in Documentation about Linear System of Equations is Formally Wrong

SOURCE http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/constructions/linear_algebra.html sage: var('a,b,c')(a, b, c)sage: eqn = [a+b*c==1, b-a*c==0, a+b==5]sage: s = solve(eqn, a,b,c); s[[a == (25*I*sqrt(79) + 25)/(6*I*sqrt(79) - 34), b == (5*I*sqrt(79) + 5)/(I*sqrt(79) + 11), c == 1/10*I*sqrt(79) +