On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Robert
Bradshawrober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Jun 23, 2009, at 3:09 PM, rje wrote:
First, thanks to David and William, who have answered my questions in
the past.
I have access to NVIDIA Tesla and AMD Firestream GPGPU hardware. Are
there any
On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:58 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Robert
Bradshawrober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
On Jun 23, 2009, at 3:09 PM, rje wrote:
First, thanks to David and William, who have answered my
questions in
the past.
I have access to NVIDIA
Thanks for your detailed answer !
This clarifies lots of things for me !
On 24 juin, 19:05, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Nicolasnicolas.fresseng...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I thought this was clear.
when you type
sage: a=x+x+1
sage: a
2*x + 1
just upgraded to 4.02 ...
I´m thinking what 4.02 really means because sage´s progress is really
fast, looking from user perspective Sage version numbers are changing
fast ? How far is this project ? Is there a way to show us users where
we currently are with current Sage version and what the
Dear all,
Since the upgrade to sage 4, I receive the following error message:
sage: var('hi kunsati delyui')
sage: hi._latex_ = lambda: 'h_i' # Matric suction
head in layer i (=pcapvec)
sage: kunsati._latex_ = lambda: 'K_{unsat,i}' # Unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity in
Suse 11, G4 Mac, Sage-4.02, spits out the following after a (long)
time:
;;; Note: Scanning #Pbuild:lsp;defstruct.o.NEWEST
Cannot find out entry point for binary file
build:lsp;defstruct.o.NEWEST
Broken at TOP-LEVEL. File: #P/home/augeas/sage-4.0.2/spkg/build/
ecl-9.4.1/src/src/lsp/top.lsp (Form
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, kexboris.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
just upgraded to 4.02 ...
I´m thinking what 4.02 really means because sage´s progress is really
fast, looking from user perspective Sage version numbers are changing
fast ? How far is this project ? Is there a way to show us
Hi Boris,
On Jun 25, 12:59 pm, kex boris.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
just upgraded to 4.02 ...
I´m thinking what 4.02 really means because sage´s progress is really
fast, looking from user perspective Sage version numbers are changing
fast ? How far is this project ? Is there a way to show us
Folks,
would this topic be suitable for some corner of Sage ?
It would need applets / at least wireframe pictures to liven it up
but I'd need examples / handholding for that. Please let me know.
Thanks,
cheers
4-triangle roof for interpolation and least squares
Abstract:
Interpolation or
Thanks for the help so far.
I've come a fair way and implemented a good portion in cython.
However, the speedup was only minor ( a factor of 2) and I suspect
I'm missing something. If anyone can give me any tips on how to
optimize the code, that would be most appreciated. Tips on the code
itself
Is there anyway to create function that solves equations for value in
a range and gives a floating pt. answer?
It would seem like solve would do it, but I don't see how.
Thanx
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
On Jun 25, 2:23 pm, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
As far as I understand, this documents the changes since the last
version. There certainly exist release tours for older versions, too
(I don't know where).
Is there a summary for what changed from sage 3.0 to sage 4.0? I don't
Actually there are two issues.
Sure, the determinant issue is fairly easily diagnosed. No wonder that an n!
algorithm takes time. I'll try to look into this.
But it's not the only thing.
sage: p=3
sage: n=1000
sage: K=GF(p)
sage: KP.x=PolynomialRing(K)
sage: time xI=diagonal_matrix([x for
2009/6/25 Emmanuel Thomé emmanuel.th...@gmail.com:
Actually there are two issues.
Sure, the determinant issue is fairly easily diagnosed. No wonder that an n!
algorithm takes time. I'll try to look into this.
But it's not the only thing.
sage: p=3
sage: n=1000
sage: K=GF(p)
sage:
Hello!
I have a polynomial P, let's say P = x^3 - 139656*x^2 -
59208339456*x - 1467625047588864.
K.a = NumberField(P)
Clearly a.charpoly() gives me P. I want to know if there is a
way to express the other two roots of P, besides a, as a polynomial
with rational
Was this ever resolved. I'm having the same problem with sage-4.0.2.
Should I be building a different version?
-Mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Hi,
I am trying to construct the usual spline basis functions. In short, I
start with several piecewise functions that take values 1 and 0 only,
and then make combinations of them. But there is something with the
syntax that I am not managing to do well, I suppose:
L[1]
Piecewise defined
I know multiplication is very finicky. You might try using
R.t = PolynomialRing(RR, t) instead, but I'm not sure that will work either.
Can you post more of your code so I can give a more detailed answer?
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Sevillasevil...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am
Forget the question. I found find_root.
On Jun 25, 9:02 am, Mikie thephantom6...@hotmail.com wrote:
Is there anyway to create function that solves equations for value in
a range and gives a floating pt. answer?
It would seem like solve would do it, but I don't see how.
Thanx
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Simon Kingsimon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
SNIP
As far as I understand, this documents the changes since the last
version. There certainly exist release tours for older versions, too
(I don't know where).
Release tours for older Sage releases can be found at
On Jun 25, 6:28 pm, egb ebaza...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello!
I have a polynomial P, let's say P = x^3 - 139656*x^2 -
59208339456*x - 1467625047588864.
K.a = NumberField(P)
Clearly a.charpoly() gives me P. I want to know if there is a
way to express the other two roots
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Mike Wittmwg...@gmail.com wrote:
Was this ever resolved. I'm having the same problem with sage-4.0.2.
Should I be building a different version?
We reported this to the Singular group, they agreed it is a bug, and they
fixed it in their version. I don't know
On Jun 25, 2009, at 6:50 AM, Ethan Van Andel wrote:
Thanks for the help so far.
I've come a fair way and implemented a good portion in cython.
However, the speedup was only minor ( a factor of 2) and I suspect
I'm missing something. If anyone can give me any tips on how to
optimize the
23 matches
Mail list logo
