I think it would be impossible to write an interface to a package you
do not (yet) know. Any Sage-REDUCE interface should be written by
someone who knows REDUCE very well. They possibly do not need to know
Sage so well.
John Cremona
2008/10/13 Hazem [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi William,
I am
, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Cremona wrote:
I think it would be impossible to write an interface to a package you
do not (yet) know. Any Sage-REDUCE interface should be written by
someone who knows REDUCE very well. They possibly do not need to know
Sage so well.
John
where you press Tab.
I know this is the right answer since William is sitting next to me...
John Cremona
It seems to only see the question mark but not the command before it.
If I type y, it just shows all possible commands I could use.
I get the same behaviour with 3.1.2 (Intel Mac with OSX
2008/10/22 Timothy Clemans [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
def from_digits(lis):
return ZZ(''.join([str(i) for i in lis[::-1]]))
Or even
sage: n = 150
sage: dig = n.digits()
sage: PolynomialRing(ZZ,'x')(dig)(2)
150
but I agree that this should be a provided function.
NB trac ticket #2796 may soon
A variation on your first try is:
sage: ((a*b - (1/2)*a*(b - c))/a).simplify_radical()
(c + b)/2
which works fine. Maybe it's a bug in maxima. I don't see why you
would need simplify_radical() at all here, since your expression
contains no radicals.
John Cremona
2008/10/24 Stan Schymanski
radicals and
exponentials.
John Cremona
Thanks a lot for thinking about it!
Stan
On Oct 24, 3:04 pm, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A variation on your first try is:
sage: ((a*b - (1/2)*a*(b - c))/a).simplify_radical()
(c + b)/2
which works fine. Maybe it's a bug in maxima. I
2008/10/28 John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It should not be difficult to convert the power series over GF(p) to
pari. If you do
sage: R.x=PowerSeriesRing(GF(5),x)
sage: f = x^2+1
and then
sage: f._pari_??
you will see the comment that converson of power series from Sage to
pari
',
'eulers_method_2x2_plot',
'gnuplot',
'gnuplot_console',
'implicit_plot',
'list_plot',
'list_plot3d',
'matrix_plot',
'networkx_plot',
'parametric_plot',
'parametric_plot3d',
'plot',
'plot3d',
'plot_slope_field',
'plot_vector_field',
'plotkin_bound_asymp',
'plotkin_upper_bound',
'polar_plot']
John
2008/10/28 Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Oct 27, 2008, at 2:15 PM, cesarnda wrote:
is there a way to do that in a fancy way in pure cython?
No, the cartesian_product_iterator will still work in the context of
Sage though, as will Georg's solution.
If I needed to do this loop
Does it help if you replace the initial ''' with r''' ?
John Cremona
2008/10/30 kcrisman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes. Could you please post the said link. I really want to know what
caused the problem you're describing.
http://math.uchicago.edu/~crisman/Weird_Notebook_Behavior.sws
I would
arcsinh(x) = log(1+sqrt(1+x^2)), I seem to remember. [Proof: exercise]
John Cremona
2008/10/31 William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Jim Clark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello sage gurus,
Using sage to check a manually calculated integral :
sage: var('r,h
Does this help you:
Suppose (for a toy example) I have defined a Python function like this:
sage: def f(M):
: d = M.det()
: return d
And I have a file called testin.sage containing a large number of
lines like this:
[[1,2],[3,4]]
[[5,6],[7,8]]
[[1,2],[3,4]]
[[5,6],[7,8]]
On Nov 26, 8:31 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Nov 26, 2008, at 3:30 AM, Simon King wrote:
Dear Michael,
On Nov 26, 11:34 am, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de wrote:
please open a ticket. I would guess as you did that those two
related.
Done, it is #
I don't suppose that Sage can do this? It is not clear what the input
would be exactly.
John Cremona
-- Forwarded message --
From: Colin Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2008/12/1
Subject: Re: maths-staff: Help
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi guys
A software problem. Does
+ 1)^2,
(x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + 1)^2,
(x^4 + 2*x^3 + x^2 + 1)^2]
John Cremona
On Dec 3, 9:57 am, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 3, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Simon King wrote:
Dear Tim,
On Dec 3, 7:15 am, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
No, because I want instead
. I think that the LLL function is one
such place: I just looked at its docstring (via A.LLL?) and there is
no mention of the row convention. That should be added.
John Cremona
2008/12/13 David Joyner wdjoy...@gmail.com:
Two comments:
(1) in the theory of linear block codes, a basis
2008/12/16 Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu:
On Dec 16, 2008, at 7:47 AM, mabshoff wrote:
On Dec 16, 7:44 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
I posted a patch there that does some error checking at least. It's
minimal. I hope somebody will referee it asap so it
until one is found that does. That
would be much easier to improve.
John Cremona
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support-unsubscr
That looks very like the exponential integral you are computing. If
so, you can use Sage's function Ei() which calls scipy's
special.exp1().
John Cremona
2008/12/22 M. Yurko myu...@gmail.com:
Alright, below is the original python implementation of the function:
def python(x,bits):
i
of this function in eclib (in C++,
using NTL's RR type) but it is not currently wrapped in Sage.
John Cremona
few a acceleration ideas for the defining sequence, and this is just
the baseline to which I want to compare the other versions.
On Dec 22, 11:43 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote
2008/12/22 William Stein wst...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/22 M. Yurko myu...@gmail.com:
It is the exponential integral, but I want greater than double
precision. I tried PARI, and it reports the number in arbitrary
2008/12/22 William Stein wst...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:51 PM, M. Yurko myu...@gmail.com wrote:
First, about my issues with PARI's precision. I just tested the
following:
-pari(-10).eint1().n(150)
and got 2492.2289762418777541164160993503173813223839 which is
inaccurate after
Thanks Paul, that is very helpful; it means that all the discussion
of conversion to and from pari is redundant.
John
2008/12/23 Paul Zimmermann paul.zimmerm...@loria.fr:
Hi,
as a followup on the Arbitrary precision in cython thread, I'd like to
mention that one can directly use
(x^2 + y^2 = 0)
sage: eqn.lhs()
y^2+x^2
sage: eqn.rhs()
0
eqn.tab offers 2160 possible ways to go...!
John Cremona
I would like to do some manipulations on an equation by breaking it
down into terms and parts.
Thanks
Blair
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post
'sage.rings.real_mpfr.RealNumber'
so that the return type of .n() is real.
John Cremona
2008/12/29 mabshoff michael.absh...@mathematik.uni-dortmund.de:
On Dec 29, 8:55 am, ggrafendorfer georg.grafendor...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Georg,
You should do it the right way instead of the wrong way
to me.
John Cremona
2008/12/29 Santanu Sarkar sarkar.santanu@gmail.com:
I write a program in SAGE as follows:
R.x1,x2=QQ[]
M=matrix(R,1,2,[x1+x2,x1*x2])
may i do following steps to extract polynomials from matrix?
1) x = list(M)
2) f1 = x[0]
3) f2 = x[1]
is f1 f2 are polynomials
I wrote the C++ code which the compiler is choking on. It looks like
the wrong headers are being picked up, so it seems most likely that
it's a problem with the way your compiler is installed.
I don't have anything helpful to suggest, bu others reading this list
probably will!
John Cremona
When sage-nt (nt = Number Theory) was created it was announced to sage-
devel, and a second announcement was made recently.
I'm sure it used to be listed on the Sage website along with the
others, but when I just looked I could not see it.
John Cremona
On Jan 28, 12:28 am, Robert Bradshaw
+ 2*t^12 + 2*t^11 + 2*t^10 + 2*t^9 + t^7 +
t^6 + t^5 + t^4 + t^3 + t^2 + t + 1)/(t^17 + t^9 + t)
sage 3.4.alpha0 gives the same thing.
John Cremona
2009/3/7 Alex Lara lrodr...@gmail.com:
Hi guys,
I recently upgrade sage from 3.2.3 to 3.3. I'm also have sage 3.1.1
The thing
I am hoping that someone who has worked on that code, such as Martin
Albrecht, might reply as might know what is going on. It should not
be too hard to fix.
I could not find a relevant trac ticket so am opening one now.
John Cremona
2009/3/7 Alex Lara lrodr...@gmail.com:
Just as I thought
It is now ticket number 5451: see http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5451
John Cremona
2009/3/7 John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com:
I am hoping that someone who has worked on that code, such as Martin
Albrecht, might reply as might know what is going on. It should not
be too hard
just gave up, since I can do without graphics, but it
would be nice to know what the problem is.
John Cremona
2009/3/7 Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com:
Kwankyu wrote:
Hi,
In my Sage 3.3 notebook on Mac OS 10.5/Firefox 3.07, Jmol 3d graphics
are shown as just black rectangles. I know
It turns out that the bug underlying this has already been fixed in
ticket 5434 which has been merged in 3.4.rc1, so this problem will not
arise once 3.4 has been released.
2009/3/7 John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com:
It is now ticket number 5451: see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac
That's interesting -- there is no java at all listed in the list of
plugins. This is with 32-bit ubuntu.
John
2009/3/7 gerhard ge01...@yahoo.de:
with all sorts of JRE's
one possible reason for this problem is
the plugin firefox may be using.
check by typing
about:plugins
in the
-javaplugin.so
and pick the one that looks like it comes from Sun.
Rob
On Mar 7, 2:22 pm, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the detailed instructions. I have never heard of
xulrunner. Something of that name was installed but I installed a
newer (?) version using synaptic. I also
Perhaps the Sage version of the database should have the rounded
analytic Sha values and not the floating point ones (for positive rank
curves, I mean: in the rank 0 case the values are already integers).
Nils, if you get the files
)]
sage: b = prime_powers(95,1234)
sage: len(b)
(etc)
John Cremona
On 22 Mar, 16:15, Mike Hansen mhan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Mar 22, 7:16 am, christophe van der putten
christophe.v...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am a newbie with sage, a want to save in a text file all prime
I think I do understand what Armand is asking. Let's see:
Say I have been using Magma for half an hour. I typed lots of stuff,
including typos etc, and a whole lot of output has scrolled past. Now
I want to keep all the commands that I typed, put them in a file,
sanitize them, ans use them
#5683.
Kwankyu
I posted a patch athttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5683
Somebody should review it.
The patch now has a positive review.
John Cremona
William
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
The actual cardinality is computed using the pari library (since the
field is a prime field and p10**18). I the leak is in libsingular it
must come from constructing the curve, not from computing the
cardinality. So it would be worth testing the loop with a new
function which constructs the
When an elliptic curve is created the code in the __init__ function in
ell_generic.py (lines 164-5) do cause a multivariate polynomial ring
to be created. In this case it's a new ring each time as the base
field is always a new field.
The reason this is done is that the elliptic curve class
On May 2, 5:55 pm, simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Dear John,
On 2 Mai, 18:39, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
When an elliptic curve is created the code in the __init__ function in
ell_generic.py (lines 164-5) do cause a multivariate polynomial ring
to be created
/python2.5/site-packages/sage/
structure/formal_sum.py
Constructor information:
Definition: FormalSum(self, x, parent=Abelian Group of all Formal
Finite Sums over Integer Ring, check=True, reduce=True)
What were you trying to do?
John Cremona
On May 9, 1:00 pm, Christian Nassau nas
, maple and matlab do the non-obvious thing there must
be a good reason for it! And as Mike said, you can always get the
real root by inserting brackets.
John Cremona
On May 14, 6:56 am, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 9:11 PM, Bill Page wrote:
On Wed, May
.
John Cremona
On Jun 6, 8:22 am, simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi!
On 6 Jun., 05:45, Robert Dodier robert.dod...@gmail.com wrote:
CVS log claims this bug was fixed recently (between 5.17 5.18).
Here's what I get with Maxima from CVS (5.18+).
...
Very good! So, ticket #6228 can be closed
switch to rational coeffs:
sage: x = polygen(QQ)
sage: f = 2*x**2 - x
sage: f.factor()
(2) * (x - 1/2) * x
Here 2 is the unit factor amd the other two are irreducible
polynomials normalised to be monic, which makes sense over a field.
John Cremona
On Jun 17, 7:30 am, Robert Bradshaw rober
(that I can see), which is surely a normal
prerequisite for getting any help at all!
John Cremona
On Jun 17, 8:22 pm, Craig Citro craigci...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
thanks! however, not quite there - how do I get the units in terms of
q?
So I just tried this in sage 4.0.2.rc2, and here's what
On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/17 Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu:
On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:05 AM, John Cremona wrote:
I think is is easier, both on the eye and for a beginner to
understand:
sage: x = polygen(ZZ)
sage: f = 2*x**2 - x
On Jun 22, 7:59 pm, adam mohamed adam.hariv...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the very quick response. I will try that tomorrow. Now I
understand the problem that we met when running the same code in a linux
machine.
I am doing this search for cryptographic applications, so I
of Galois theory.
John Cremona
David
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http
David is right, you should be possible to do what you want using the
log function in the units module.
When Sage has better support for f.g. abelian groups (which is on its
way, I think) this kind of thing should be simpler to do.
John Cremona
On Jul 9, 11:55 am, davidloeffler dave.loeff
at the member functions of U.
John Cremona
On Jul 21, 6:01 pm, mac8090 bonzerpot...@hotmail.com wrote:
For a field extension over Q of 2 values, for example M=QQ(i, sqrt
(2)), it is possible to find an absolute field X by the following
L.b=NumberField(x^2-2)
R.t=L[]
M.c=L.extension(t^2+1
On Jul 22, 12:21 pm, davidloeffler dave.loeff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 21, 6:01 pm, mac8090 bonzerpot...@hotmail.com wrote:
For a field extension over Q of 2 values, for example M=QQ(i, sqrt
(2)), it is possible to find an absolute field X by the following
L.b=NumberField(x^2-2)
Hi Victor. Although I don't know the answer to your question, I'm
sure that it actually a python question (rather than a sage one) so I
expect that the answer lies somewhere in the wealth of online python
documentation!
Of course someone else might give a more helpful answer...
John Cremona
polynomial x^2 - 3
To: Real Field with 106 bits of precision
Defn: a |-- 1.732050807568877293527446341506]
See the docstring. You can set all_complex=True to get both
conjugates if needed.
John Cremona
On Jul 24, 10:41 am, mac8090 bonzerpot...@hotmail.com wrote:
For a number field X
I'm on holiday but will look into this when I can.
John Cremona
(author of mwrank, but not of the Sage/msrank interface ;))
On Jul 31, 6:48 pm, cronopio julencrono...@gmail.com wrote:
I am using Sage Version 4.1, Release Date: 2009-07-09 on an iMac Intel
core 2 duo running Mac OS X 10.5.7
on it.
For the first time in my life I tried running sage on one machine and
connecting from another, and I cannot get it to work.
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group
Thanks for the replies.
It's on the big wide internet, not local.
On 16 Aug, 19:27, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:49 AM, John Cremonajohn.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
In the docstring for notebook() it says More documentation is available
in the
Sage
0 0 localhost:6012 *:*
LISTEN
which includes a listen on 8000 (and the sage server is running), but
what does that prove?
John
On 16 Aug, 21:22, Kevin Horton khorto...@rogers.com wrote:
John Cremona wrote:
Thanks for the replies.
It's on the big wide internet, not local
I now can connect to that sage server (running on ubuntu, by the way,
and administered by Bill Hart and myself) but this is from another
machine on the university network so I'll have to try form home too.
I started the server using exactly notebook
(address=selmer.warwick.ac.uk, port=8000,
Progress report.
After succesfully logging into my own notebook as admin, I started to
set up a few user accounts. I followed the instructions in the
notebook? docstring:
accounts -- (default: False) if True, any visitor to
the
website will be able
One more thing I just noticed. When I run notebook(...) to start up
the notebook server, the last line displayed is
https://selmer.warwick.ac.uk:8000/?startup_token=634498ad5f3559f3b0121beeb6e0beb8:
No such file or directory
and this may be a clue to the problem.
On 19 Aug, 15:10, John
I think I wrote the ordinal_str function, for the output of certain
messages related to roots of unity. Clearly I did not do a perfect
job: it uses 'st' for 1 mod 10 except for 11, but I think that should
be: 'st' for 1 mod 10 except 'th' for 11 mod 100. Similarly for 2 and
3 mod 10.
I just
, I think, and then use a.matrix
() and only keep the W which are stable under that.
I hope this helps,
John Cremona
On Aug 31, 9:28 am, zieglerk konstantin.zieg...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear list,
Starting from a finite field, say
F = GF (16).
I want to consider a subfield, say
E = GF(4
I successfully built SAGE 2.7 from scratch on my debian etch laptop a
couple of days ago. But today I tried sage -upgrade to get 2.7.1 and
failed -- no space left on device. At this point the sage directory
contains 1.2G.
Perhaps I'll need a new laptop to continue to upgrade my SAGE!
John
of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://www.williamstein.org
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit
=EllipticCurve([0,-1,1,0,0]);
ap=e.aplist(1);
plist=prime_range(1);
[1+plist[i]-ap[i] for i in range(prime_pi(1))]
John Cremona
On 8/10/07, Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi again everyone,
I'm playing around with this project exploring Hasse's theorem for
Elliptic Curves over
with me.
aplist was all I needed. Tate Silverman doesn't have much on Modular
forms, would Silverman's Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves be better
suited? Any reference is welcome.
Everyone has been very helpful.
-Justin
On Aug 10, 1:29 pm, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I don't
Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x8EF0DC99
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
_jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
=11|
in_terms_of_normal_basis(a+1)
///
[1, 0, 0, 0, 0]
}}}
{{{id=12|
in_terms_of_normal_basis(1 + a + a^2 + a^3)
///
[1, 0, 0, 1, 0]
}}}
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage
to use (a).
- David Joyner
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com
takes such a long time.
How can i do better?
Yours sincerely
Simon
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more
As an alternative, which would give you much more than just pari/gp,
you could install Sage (www.sagemath.org) which is fully supported on
the mac, and then you will have pari/gp. Sage will install everythng
it needs.
John Cremona
CC'd ro sage-support
On 06/11/2007, Louis Granboulan [EMAIL
to be untrustworthy by some, also).
John
On 07/11/2007, mabshoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 7, 5:08 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 4:34 AM, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is true that the cpu time does not include any of the child
processes, and also
read even without being a member (which I don't know).
I seem to remember that in a previous email you mentioned not wanting
to have a Google account. I would be interested to know why (no
hurry, we can chat in Bristol).
John
--
John Cremona
])
return factor(E.cardinality())
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http
?
[On kubuntu 7.10]
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
I am currently making sure that my code compiles ok with gcc 4.2.1 and
will upload a patch so this will be fixed soon.
John Cremona
On 23/11/2007, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 22, 2007 7:43 AM, Andrzej Giniewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I seen in announcement
feared that loads of
things would go *boom*].
Cheers,
Michael
Cheers,
Michael
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
from sage.server.notebook.all import notebook
ImportError: No module named sage.server.notebook.all
Thanks!
- William
(Sent from my iPhone.)
Adam
--
Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent. -- Sun Tzu
--
John Cremona
.
John Cremona
On 09/01/2008, achrzesz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
My question is
connected with file http://modular.fas.harvard.edu/ent/ent_py
and especially with checking the associativity law of addition on ell.
curves.
When I was trying to perform the same calculations in Sage I
(..., {eqs}) command, which computes the normal form of a
polynomial with respect to a set of polynomial equations. This is quite useful
for the user who is not aware of Gröbner bases (or the aware-user who prefers
a simple command). Does a similar command exist in SAGE?
Paul Zimmermann
--
John
(1....) is the answer, and the second is an error
bound.
I've made the bug you point out above trac #1773:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1773
-- William
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send
.|
--
sage: f(x) = -x
sage: f(2)
-2
Could it be related to the spaces around '='?
Jaap
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
the path
of modifying Python's behavior, other than the preparser.
Carl
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more
remember when it was Maple's turn). What seems
superficially to be the elementary solution to the question of
odd'th roots of negative reals just leads to horrendous internal
problems if followed through. Maths is not always simple.
John
Paul Zimmermann
--
John Cremona
need to
compute and display Taylor polynomials of matrices. Hopefully there
is some way I can keep a polynomial in x-1 from getting simplified
automatically when it's an element of a matrix.
Cheers,
Peter
Cheers,
Peter
--
John Cremona
...),
may this method could be useful for others, too
Thanks, Georg
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options
Simon
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
' in 'sage.libs.pari.gen.PariInstance.get_var' ignored
Then i had to interrupt with Ctrl-C
Is it possible to work in a polynomial ring over a fraction field, and
if yes, how?
Yours
Simon
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support
is to discontinue the sage-newbie list.
Ted
--
John Cremona
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http
of points, but after the fix those both
work very quickly.
John Cremona
On 21 Mar, 18:44, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:44 AM, seventeener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, I'm using v.2.10.3 on a 32-bit machine under VMware. I'm unable
to define an elliptic
Dear Benedikt,
There is code to compute the Weil pairing using a gp script (written
by me) which sage includes, but at present there is no wrapper for it
to be used in Sage. Either that could be done, or someone could
rewrite that gp script in Sage.
John Cremona
On 01/04/2008, Spit [EMAIL
be worth a look/wrap etc.
Cheers,
Martin
PS: The PBC website links to Sage btw.
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x8EF0DC99
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
_jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
John Cremona
, I'll open a ticket.
John Cremona
On 07/04/2008, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An elliptic curve bug report from a student of Koblitz...
-- Forwarded message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Subject: elliptic curve trace problem
anyway.
John Cremona
On 07/04/2008, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An elliptic curve bug report from a student of Koblitz...
-- Forwarded message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Subject: elliptic curve trace problem in SAGE
For the record, I am able to successfully (if slowly) build Sage on my
aging laptop with 512MB of RAM. So it seems that the critical value
is somewhere between 256 and 512.
On the other hand I'm not sure that I have actually done this since
about 2.9 and it gets bigger (and better!) with each
On 18/04/2008, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Hector Villafuerte [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:53 AM, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you look at Franco's Sage talk (poseted here recently) he includes
a screenful of poset examples (on page 50, near the end of the
presentation) -- which in fact makes it look as if it's in Sage
already. So unless that page of the talk is wishful thinking, he must
have made some real progress
PS Sorry that should have read posted and not poseted , ha ha.
The talk is at
http://www.lacim.uqam.ca/~saliola/maths/talks/slides/SageTalk1.pdf
John
2008/4/20 John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you look at Franco's Sage talk (poseted here recently) he includes
a screenful of poset examples
1 - 100 of 665 matches
Mail list logo
