It takes less than two minutes to run
./sage -c n=121; l=range(1,n+1); x=matrix([[floor(n/lcm(i,j)) for i in l] for j in
l]).eigenvalues();
But with n=122 calculation seems to get stuck.
Well, 122=61*2, so maybe it's because of a big factor? However, n=118=59*2
takes only about a minute. And
Hello !!
Using
G.relabel( [ i+1 for i in range(G.order()) ], inplace=True )
and repeat the same command once more causes the error below.
That is because of that (rom the doc of Graph.relabel) :
If ``perm`` is a dictionary ``d``, then each vertex ``v``
(which should be a
Okay, thanks to this vector trick I was able to do what I wanted. Do you
believe that the syntax should be changed so that A(vector(whatever)) has
the same result as A(whatever) ? vector does not add a very meaningful
information here ...
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are
Hello everybody !
I need to use the elements of GF(8,'x') x Z/3Z as an additive group. Is
there a way to do this with Sage ? I need that to add more combinatorial
designs :-)
Thanks !
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-support group.
To
The problem is now fixed by this ticket :
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16257
If you can review it, it will be merged faster, possibly into the next
release :-)
Thanks for the report,
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-support group.
On 28 April 2014 09:48, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, thanks to this vector trick I was able to do what I wanted. Do you
believe that the syntax should be changed so that A(vector(whatever)) has
the same result as A(whatever) ? vector does not add a very meaningful
I think that the point is to allow creation of elements either with respect
to the input generators (using vector) or with respect to the simplified
generators (without vector). Since both sort of input look the same (tuples
/ lists) I am guessing that the trick of using vector is just
On Monday, April 28, 2014 11:11:45 AM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
I think that the point is to allow creation of elements either with
respect to the input generators (using vector) or with respect to the
simplified generators (without vector). Since both sort of input look the
same
Thats it.
The syntax is awful, do we agree on that ?
-1, some method returns an abelian group and you don't know how it was
constructed without having to dig around.
?
But when I create a group by myself which I want to be equal to Z/2Z *
Z/3Z I end up with something different, isn't that a
On Monday, April 28, 2014 11:18:09 AM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote: Thats
it.
The syntax is awful, do we agree on that ?
Its always going to be somewhat confusing to have both the original
definition and a canonical form around. Feel free to add more descriptive
construction methods for
Helloo !!!
I think this is right. Allocating copying such a huge matrix repeatedly
would be terrible. Perhaps we should introduce an API function to
add_constraints, which takes a list of lists, or a matrix? If a solver
doesn't support such a thing, we could fall back on
Its always going to be somewhat confusing to have both the original
definition and a canonical form around. Feel free to add more descriptive
construction methods for elements. The ctor argument convention is because
that was chosen originally and I didn't want to break code when refactoring
I don't think that will work if you are relying on the error message to
indicate the wrong length of input. For example:
sage: AdditiveAbelianGroup([6,2])
Additive abelian group isomorphic to Z/2 + Z/6
Now you will expect the element (1,0) to have order 6 but it has order 2.
John
On 28 April
Hello,
This is probably a very basic question, but any guidance would be
appreciated. Is there a way to run a .sage file on Windows? I'm able to run
.sws files by running Sage on VirtualBox and then importing the file
through localhost:8000 (or by importing to sagenb.com), but I'm not able
I don't think that will work if you are relying on the error message to
indicate the wrong length of input. For example:
sage: AdditiveAbelianGroup([6,2])
Additive abelian group isomorphic to Z/2 + Z/6
Now you will expect the element (1,0) to have order 6 but it has order 2.
No, this
On Monday, April 28, 2014 2:09:55 PM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
What do you think the implications of the following changes would be ?
[...]
I would think that this is incompatible with the current syntax. If
anything, we should add a G.linear_combination_of_gens in addition to the
I would think that this is incompatible with the current syntax.
Yes of course, that changes the default ! But I am not so sure that it
would break many things, as the current implementation is so
unreliable that you cannot guess what G accepts as input, unless you
made sure to define it with a
On Monday, April 28, 2014 2:59:05 PM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
I would think that this is incompatible with the current syntax.
Yes of course, that changes the default
Hence it can break code that people have written privately.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Hence it can break code that people have written privately.
I believe that not so many have written such code, for the very same
reason. But indeed if we change that we will need a deprecation step.
Don't you agree that this change would make sense ?
I just did the change I mentionned above,
On Monday, April 28, 2014 9:21:25 AM UTC-4, J.D. Quigley wrote:
Hello,
This is probably a very basic question, but any guidance would be
appreciated. Is there a way to run a .sage file on Windows? I'm able to run
.sws files by running Sage on VirtualBox and then importing the file
The default repr is in terms of smith form gens, so IMHO it makes more
sense to default to a linear combination of smith form gens. Imagine some
method returns an abelian group, how are you going to construct elements?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
The default repr is in terms of smith form gens, so IMHO it makes more sense
to default to a linear combination of smith form gens. Imagine some method
returns an abelian group, how are you going to construct elements?
Well, obviously by changing repr, no ? O_o
Nathann
--
You received this
I mean ... Really, nobody cares what the smith form generators are.
It's a technical problem, the user does not even have to be aware of
that !
Nathann
On 28 April 2014 17:19, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
The default repr is in terms of smith form gens, so IMHO it makes more
Hi!
On 2014-04-28, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
The default repr is in terms of smith form gens, so IMHO it makes more sense
to default to a linear combination of smith form gens. Imagine some method
returns an abelian group, how are you going to construct elements?
Well,
On Monday, April 28, 2014 4:06:36 PM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
I believe that not so many have written such code, for the very same
reason. But indeed if we change that we will need a deprecation step.
Moreover, how are you going to deprecate it? When is a deprecation warning
shown?
--
Moreover, how are you going to deprecate it? When is a deprecation warning
shown?
Ahahahah. That's an interesting question, but the current way being
bad, there is absolutely no way that it will stay like that forever
just because we don't know how to tell the users :-D
I had something a bit
To be honest, I would prefer to do the opposite. Changing it now while
printing a message saying that the format changed, and removing the
message one year from now.
Nathann
On 28 April 2014 17:27, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover, how are you going to deprecate it? When
Here's something I find really confusing about additive abelian groups:
sage: H = AdditiveAbelianGroup([0,2])
sage: H((2,0))
(0, 0)
sage: H(vector((2,0)))
(2, 0)
sage: H((1,0)).order()
2
sage: H(vector((1,0))).order()
+Infinity
This is terrible, and a symptom of what Nathann wants to fix. It
Showing a deprecation warning for valid input isn't ideal ;-)
Indeed, indeed. Right now it prints the following input, which I hope
will be taken seriously by those who should, and be ignored by those
who should :
sage: x = A([5]); x
doctest:1: DeprecationWarning: The default behaviour changed
Hello guys !
I just created ticket #16261 about this and uploaded my branch. It's
funny that to make all tests pass I only had to add four
linear_combination_of_smith_form_gens...
Now the problem is that I have no idea how to change .short_name()
(which is called by __repr__), as I have no idea
Showing a deprecation warning for valid input isn't ideal ;-)
How about we deprecate all list/tuple input and force the user to use
G.linear_combination_of_smith_form_gens / G.linear_combination_of_gens.
On Monday, April 28, 2014 4:27:45 PM UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Moreover, how are
Ahahaah. While writing that code, I met an infinite loop. Apparently
testing if an element of a group is equal to +infinity calls
__repr__... :-P
Nathann
On 28 April 2014 18:16, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Showing a deprecation warning for valid input isn't ideal ;-)
Indeed,
On Monday, April 28, 2014 12:56:48 AM UTC-7, jori.ma...@uta.fi wrote:
It takes less than two minutes to run
./sage -c n=121; l=range(1,n+1); x=matrix([[floor(n/lcm(i,j)) for i in l]
for j in l]).eigenvalues();
But with n=122 calculation seems to get stuck.
Well, 122=61*2, so maybe
The current branch passes all tests in groups/ and modules/fg_pid/ :-)
Needs review !
Nathann
On 28 April 2014 18:29, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Ahahaah. While writing that code, I met an infinite loop. Apparently
testing if an element of a group is equal to +infinity calls
On Monday, April 28, 2014 9:14:17 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
Showing a deprecation warning for valid input isn't ideal ;-)
How about we deprecate all list/tuple input and force the user to use
G.linear_combination_of_smith_form_gens / G.linear_combination_of_gens.
list input is actually
Hello again !
This time the branch passes all long tests in src/ except one, and I need
your advice. Here is the problem :
**
File chain_complex.py, line 738, in
sage.homology.chain_complex.ChainComplex_class.grading_group
Turns out that I am an idiot, and that the warning is triggered by the
degree=G([1,2])
part of the expression I had overlooked. The branch now passes all tests,
and is in needs_review.
The only thing that needs to be discussed is this warning problem, and
whether we should create a new function
On 2014-04-28, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Monday, April 28, 2014 12:56:48 AM UTC-7, jori.ma...@uta.fi wrote:
It takes less than two minutes to run
./sage -c n=121; l=range(1,n+1); x=matrix([[floor(n/lcm(i,j)) for i in l]
for j in l]).eigenvalues();
But with n=122 calculation
On 2014-04-28, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everybody !
I need to use the elements of GF(8,'x') x Z/3Z as an additive group. Is
there a way to do this with Sage ? I need that to add more combinatorial
designs :-)
Do you need multiplication in GF(8)? If not, you can just
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2014-04-28, Nils Bruin nbr...@sfu.ca wrote:
On Monday, April 28, 2014 12:56:48 AM UTC-7, jori.ma...@uta.fi wrote:
It takes less than two minutes to run
./sage -c n=121; l=range(1,n+1); x=matrix([[floor(n/lcm(i,j))
Yes I do need the multiplication too. I am implementing constructions of
MOLS and for some of them I need to do some computations on a field, then
give everything to a function that needs group elements as input... So I
need it to be a group and also to see this as a field. Can we do that in
Sage
On 2014-04-28, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I do need the multiplication too. I am implementing constructions of
MOLS and for some of them I need to do some computations on a field, then
give everything to a function that needs group elements as input... So I
need it to be
42 matches
Mail list logo
