[sage-support] Re: Sage Crash Report

it seems it is an ABI problem where we get two different managled names for the same function signature. I am not sure what to make out of this and have only two explanations: 1. It is a bug in the C++ compiler. 2. The two libraries were compiled with different C++ compilers or with dif

[sage-support] Re: Sage Crash Report

library from something that is not in the dedicated conda environment. On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 8:05:04 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > config.log please > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 3:16:25 PM UTC-7 Matthias Goerner wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> I can't ge

[sage-support] Re: Sage Crash Report

9.7 with python 3.10 seems to work on Ventura 13.3 on a M2. On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 3:16 PM Matthias Goerner wrote: > Hi! > > I can't get sage to work when installing it with conda on a new MacBook > Pro with M2 chip and Ventura 13.3. > > I tried > conda -n sage creat

[sage-support] Sage Crash Report

Hi! I can't get sage to work when installing it with conda on a new MacBook Pro with M2 chip and Ventura 13.3. I tried conda -n sage create sage=9.X python=3.Y for (X,Y) = (5,10), (8,10), (8,11). With Sage 9.5, I get the attached crash report. With Sage 9.8, I get the following linking error

[sage-support] Re: Segfault with conda installation of SageMath-9.3 and 9.4 on Mac OS X

I now have repro steps that do not require SnapPy at all: Rx = PolynomialRing(RationalField(), 'x') R = PolynomialRing(Rx, 'y') R('-y^2 + x^2 - x + 1').resultant(R('(2*x - 1)*y')) On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 11:19:38 PM UTC-8 Matthias Goerner wrote: > I am getting a crash when I

[sage-support] Segfault with conda installation of SageMath-9.3 and 9.4 on Mac OS X

I am getting a crash when I am running SnapPy's https://github.com/3-manifolds/SnapPy test suite against SageMath with the stack trace below. I created several different conda environments, all with python 3.9.9, on Mac OS 11.5.2 x86_64 and it seems to be related to the (cy)pari version. That

[sage-support] Re: Automatic Differentiation in Sage?

Exactly! That's it, mathematically speaking! However, when I try sage: sin(2 / (A((0.99, 1.01)) + dx + 3*dy)) ValueError: Can only apply sin to formal power series with zero constant term. And, I get sage: A((0.99,1.01)) 1.0? but sage: sage: A(RIF(0.99,1.01)) 1.0? + O(dx, dy)^53 Shouldn't

[sage-support] Re: Automatic Differentiation in Sage?

Sorry, I meant "Symbolic differentiation is not automatic differentiation", see the link to the wikipedia article . Thanks for the links to the libraries they do similar things to what I want to do, but not quiet since they don't seem to

[sage-support] Re: Automatic Differentiation in Sage?

different things! And there really are applications for the latter. On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 1:14:17 PM UTC-7, Matthias Goerner wrote: > > I have a function such as cos(x/y) and values for x and y and want to use > automatic differentiation (a la wikipedia article > <https://e

[sage-support] Automatic Differentiation in Sage?

I have a function such as cos(x/y) and values for x and y and want to use automatic differentiation (a la wikipedia article ) to find the value and derivatives with respect to x and y. Can

[sage-support] sage-7.4-Ubuntu_15.10-x86_64.tar.bz2 crashes

I just tried to run sage-7.4-Ubuntu_15.10-x86_64.tar.bz2 but it crashes with SIGILL (also attached CPU info): ┌┐ │ SageMath version 7.4, Release Date: 2016-10-18 │ │ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based

[sage-support] How to convert sage finitely presented group to magma?

I have a finitely presented group in sage, how do I convert it to a magma object? We tried the following, but it failed. Is this a bug? sage: L=FreeGroup(1) Free Group on generators {x} sage: S=L/[L.0^3] sage: magma(S) /opt/sage6/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/magma.pyc in

[sage-support] Re: Error in Building Sage (particularly ecm-6.4)

I get a similar error, this time the instruction is Error: no such instruction: `shrx %eax,108(%rsp),%r9d' and I am compiling on gcc version 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-16) (GCC) with SAGE_INSTALL_GCC=yes. It seems to me this is due to sage using its own version of "gcc" but the system's

[sage-support] Re: Regression from sage 6.7 to sage 6.10 when factoring polynomial over number field

That answers it perfectly! On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 1:00:00 PM UTC-8, Nils Bruin wrote: > > On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:36:32 PM UTC-8, Matthias Goerner wrote: >> >> >> # Lift polynomial back to Q[x][y] >> lifted = factor.map_coefficients(lambda c:Rx

[sage-support] Regression from sage 6.7 to sage 6.10 when factoring polynomial over number field

I have given a polynomial in two variables y^10+10 * y^8 * x^3 + 1 in Q[x][y] and a polynomial defining a number field such as x^5 + 137. I want to factor the polynomial over the number field and then evaluate it given numerical interval values for x and y. I used to do the following:

[sage-support] Wrong NumberField.composite_field when embeddings are complex-conjugate roots of the same polynomial

The NumberField containing both embeddings should be larger. The morphisms also clearly show that something is going wrong: sage: nf = NumberField(x^8 - 3*x^7 + 61/3*x^6 - 9*x^5 + 298*x^4 + 458*x^3 + 1875*x^2 + 4293*x + 3099, 'z', embedding=-1.18126721294295 + 3.02858651117832j) sage: nf2 =

[sage-support] Bug in primary decomposition of (1) ideal: the primary decomposition should be empty

Ideal(PolynomialRing(RationalField(),['x','y']),-1).primary_decomposition() returns [] as expected but Ideal(PolynomialRing(RationalField(),['x','y']),1).primary_decomposition() returns [Ideal (1) of Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y over Rational Field]. Clearly the ideals are identical, so

[sage-support] Re: Bug in primary decomposition of (1) ideal: the primary decomposition should be empty

Version: 'Sage Version 5.2, Release Date: 2012-07-25' OS: Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.2: Thu Aug 23 16:25:48 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1699.32.7~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64 On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:58:31 PM UTC-8, Matthias Goerner wrote: Ideal(PolynomialRing(RationalField(),['x','y']),-1