I saw today that my CoCalc (https://cocalc.com/) license was about to renew. I've been meaning to move to a more #SelfHosting or #P2P paradigm, so this was good timing for me to cancel. I left this message when doing so:

"I want to support Sage, and I like using CoCalc, but I don't want to put money towards a service that supports Microsoft, Amazon, or OpenAI in any way. I didn't care so much about this before, and I even log in to CoCalc with a GitHub account, but I'm tired of having my work scraped for profit by people who donate to fascists who are destroying my nation. I would consider returning if all ties to these corporations were cut and cloud computing services came from responsible companies, perhaps in the EU."

I'm pretty sure I already have backups of everything I want from GitHub, so I can be done with them too. I should have quit when Microsoft first arrived. My plan is to switch to Radicle (https://radicle.xyz/) rather than another centralized service. I'll be sure to post about how that goes.

#sagemath

$ cd sage
$ rg insert.0

I ran across the Wikipedia article on Littlewood polynomials. It has a plot of all the roots of the degree 15 polynomials, that looks very nice. I thought I would create an animation showing the roots for degree 1, degree 2, etc. I also thought maybe I'd add a plot of the roots for something with degree higher than 15. Here is the degree 16 plot (this is reduced to 25% of the original image). It took 2 hours in Sage on my laptop, so I might try 17, even 18 - who knows? I have the thought that I ought to be able to reduce the precision, and this ought to speed things up a lot (since for plotting much lower precision than the default is needed). I don't particularly like blue, though: I'll have to try other colors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlewood_polynomial

I recently read a paper by Kleshnina and others and used it to teach myself some evolutionary game theory techniques.

This is a little obscure, so I'll thread below about why this topic matters for humans and the environment

https://nadiah.org/2024/11/20/kleshnina_2023

#Switch to #OpenSource solutions in #Linux

Photoshop: #Photopea
Illustrator: #Inkscape
PremierePro: #Kdenlive #Shotcut #OBStudio
Office: #FreeOffice #LibreOffice
Maya: #Blender
Media: #VLC
Unity: #Godot
ToonBoom: #SynfigStudio #Pencil2D
InDesign: #Scribus
Nuke: #Natron
Procreate: #Krita
After Effects: #Friction
Mathematica: #SageMath #SymPy
MatLab: #GnuOctave
Audition: #Audacity
Autocad: #FreeCAD #QCad
Ableton: #Ardour #LMMS (daily build)
Lightroom: #DarkTable, #RawTherapee

And more...

#Switch to #opensource solutions:

Windows: #Linux
Photoshop: #Gimp 3.0-rc
Illustrator: #Inkscape
PremierePro: #Kdenlive, #Shotcut
Office/Acrobat: #OnlyOffice, #LibreOffice
Maya: #Blender
Media: #VLC
Unity: #Godot
ToonBoom: #SynfigStudio, #Pencil2D
InDesign: #Scribus
Nuke: #Natron
Procreate: #Krita
After Effects: #Friction
Mathematica: #SageMath, #SymPy
MatLab: #GnuOctave
Audition: #Audacity
Autocad: #FreeCAD, #QCad
Ableton: #Ardour, #LMMS (daily build)
Lightroom: #DarkTable, #RawTherapee

I've been a fan of Sage (https://www.sagemath.org/) and CoCalc (https://cocalc.com/) for some time, and I would now like to complain.

Sage is an open source computer algebra system which is written in Python, but for technical reasons comes with its own version of the Python interpreter. The first IDE I used regularly was Eclipse, and I used to know the arcane steps needed to make it use the Sage Python binary on various systems.

I switched to PyCharm some years ago, but I have only been using it to write pure Python. Now I want to use Sage, so I tried doing the same gymnastics I used to do with Eclipse and was annoyed.

I decided that being forced to work online wasn't a big deal, so I'd use CoCalc instead. Even though CoCalc was made with Sage in mind, there does not seem to be direct support for running Python modules with Sage, only the notebook style is promoted. It seems absurd to me that after all these years it is still so much work to simply use Sage in a Python project with an IDE.

In addition to this, Sage's support for the kinds of calculations I want to do at the moment is quite immature, with TODO in many, many places.

I want to use Sage since it combines many useful (and fast) libraries that I need, but I think I need to just accept that I should start building my own solution that works for my purposes.

I know that I could contribute to Sage, but I feel like the weight of changing what I need to change is so much, and that I would get my calculation done faster by just doing it myself.

#cython из main branch не понимает long
поэтому #sagemath не собирается.

Если хочется обновить sagemath от Volker Braun, следует
1) пересобрать cython-3.0.11 без python3_13t без 3.0.11-1...master.diff
2) обновить sagemath
3) обратно пересобрать cython с python3_13t с 3.0.11-1...master.diff

Ну.... для того ж мы и ставили ​​ чтобы страдать.

Houlala #sagemath n'est plus dans les dépôt #debian #ubuntu visiblement ils ont un gros problème de compatibilité avec #python 3.12 heureusement qu'il y a des astronomes professionnels qui ont le temps d'écrire une procédure d'installation manuelle pour nous simplifier la vie

https://sagemanifolds.obspm.fr/install_ubuntu.html

#sagemath https://wiki.sagemath.org/interact/geometry #Python #Mathematics #FLOSS

@ssmns
نمونه‌های مناسب هستن (مثل #Sagemath و #Octave) درمورد سرعت و ... قبول دارم بعضی جاها. ولی اون مسئله که گفتم رو نمی‌شه با آزمون پس‌دادن حل کرد!
یکی از اصل‌های پایه‌ای کار علمی، بازتولیدپذیری (Reproducibility) باید باشه. حداقلش نیاز به پرداخت هزینه‌های بالا برای رسیدن به اون نتیجهٔ قبلیه. تازه اگه مطمئن باشیم واقعا همون نتیجهٔ قبلیه و اگه از اون وجود خطاهای احتمالی چشم‌پوشی کنیم!

Sometimes it takes more time to refute a `gcc` bug than confirm it. This week I spent most time on https://gcc.gnu.org/PR114872 where `sagemath` `SIGSEGV`ed on some simple inputs.

Bug updates are a bit hard to read and are missing a bit of compiler-unrelated context. I wrote something more coherent in https://trofi.github.io/posts/312-the-sagemath-saga.html

#sagemath programming question with #NumberFields
I have \(K\), and \(L\) a subfield of it, \(\mathfrak I \subset \mathcal O_K\) a (non principal) ideal and \(x \in \mathfrak I\).

I want to compute the \(\mathcal O_L\)-module of rank 1 \(M= x L \cap \mathfrak I \). I'm happy enough with a \(\mathbb Z\)-basis of it.

#SageMath 10.3 just dropped, with plenty of good stuff for isogenies!

#sagemath

sage: sts = designs.steiner_triple_system(7)
....: for s in ["GLPK", "PPL", "CVXPY/CBC", "CVXPY/GLPK_MI", "CVXPY/SCIP"]:
....:     c = sts.coloring(solver=s)
....:     print(f"{s:>15} {c}")
....:     
           GLPK [[0, 1], [3], [2, 4, 5, 6]]
            PPL [[0, 1, 2, 5], [3], [4, 6]]
      CVXPY/CBC [[1, 3, 6], [0, 2], [4, 5]]
  CVXPY/GLPK_MI [[0, 1], [3], [2, 4, 5, 6]]
     CVXPY/SCIP [[0, 1, 2, 5], [3, 4], [6]]