On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:06 PM Paul Masson wrote:
>
> Confirmed that `sage -b` allows notebooks to run. There are still some
> console error messages about not finding `preact-compat` and `preact`. Those
> were both removed from the notebook last summer, so probably time to upgrade
> the
the problem I see here is the recipe
requiring "user choice" and somehow specifying "inf in Mma"
Most users will not want to specify, but probably would go along with
"the mathematically consistent choice according to experts who have
studied the matter."
Certainly saying, as one choice, "inf
I think we've beat this to death. So let's agree to disagree.
This kind of thing is not intended for someone like you, but rather,
someone like me who is just getting started in Sage and CAS and wants to go
through a number of *simple* Mma tutorials and see *roughly* corresponding
results
There is an official Rasbrian package for Sage, sagemath, it gives you Sage 8.6.
I suppose it's the result of semi-automatic import of Debian Buster
into Rasbrian.
I did
pi@raspberrypi:~ $ sudo apt install sagemath
and after a long download, I could do
pi@raspberrypi:~ $ sage
Please also send the top-level config.log
Lots of optional and experimental packages are broken. See
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/29900 - which needs help.
On Monday, July 13, 2020 at 1:16:44 PM UTC-7, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> While switching SageMathCell to Ubuntu 20.04 I
As Kevin suggested, the fact that different defining polynomials are chosen
is an artifact of the algorithm. Perhaps one could add a keyword argument
to the newforms method that had it call polredabs on the field? Polredabs
can be expensive in larger degree, so there should be an option to
I was able to successfully build cryptominisat using an Ubuntu 20.04 docker
image. Some weird things I noticed from your log files:
config log says you have boost lib >= 1.66 yet your cryptominisat log file
says "Boost 1.46 found". On the next line it says:
"-- Found Boost components:
I've provided some more information to this post. Could someone please let
me know whether this behavior is intended, or a bug?
I believe the different q-expansions are equivalent - they seem to just be
generated by equivalent number fields with different defining polynomials.
I confirmed this
