« first day (1220 days earlier)      last day (3310 days later) » 

12:11 AM
@halirutan Manipulator[.2] already shows the bug. In V9 things are fine, and in V10.1 the error shows similarly when clicking the + sign.
3 hours later…
2:44 AM
@Guillochon Lost four of eight connections today. I haven't used parallel much since getting 10.1. I was testing a MSE question asked earlier today, when the links died.
3:10 AM
@VitaliyKaurov I would love to read it if only the site would load... :P
user image
3:27 AM
@MichaelE2 Yeah that seems to be what's happening to me, kernels are dying and not coming back. I wish they wouldn't die in the first place, but that seems rather hard to avoid.
3:49 AM
@Guillochon Technically, mine do not seem to die, exactly. The processes are still active but idle in the process table (Activity Monitor). But Mma complains about a lost link.
1 hour later…
5:02 AM
Any willing Guinea pigs
with the latest version? If there are: is `ParametricFunction[]` atomic?
5:34 AM
Interesting difference in philosophy of a language between Mathematica and Python. In Python, one positive claim about it, from the Zen of python "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." While in Mathematica, the current blog blog.wolfram.com/?source=nav says "A brilliant aspect of the Wolfram Language is that not only you can do virtually anything with it, you can also do whatever you want in many different ways"
A very different way of looking at the same thing !
@Guesswhoitis. how would one check if ParametricFunction[] "atomic" or not?
5:53 AM
@Nasser, generate a ParametricFunction in the usual way and apply AtomQ to it.
6:19 AM
@Guesswhoitis. I tried the example in help, it says False.
 pfun = ParametricNDSolveValue[ {x''[
              t] + \[Gamma] x'[t] + \[Omega]^2 x[t] == 0, x[0] == 1,
           x'[0] == 0}, x, {t, 0, 10}, {\[Gamma], \[Omega]}];

Out[4]= False
Version 10
Ah, okay; so, just like an InterpolatingFunction[] too. Does pfun["Methods"] return anything?
6:43 AM
@Guesswhoitis.  I did not hear the beep. Ok, here it is:
In[2]:= pfun["Methods"]

Out[2]= {Creator, DependentVariables, Evaluate, Expression,

>    IndependentVariables, MethodInformation, Methods, Parameters,

>    Properties, StateData, TooltipTable
Should be enough for now. Thanks!
@Guesswhoitis. you are welcome
7:28 AM
@TheToad ;-) (-;
7 hours later…
2:28 PM
Hi all guys, I know this maybe trivial but I'm having the following problem:

RegionPlot3D[{x > 1 && y < z, x < 1 && y > z} /. x -> 10^aa /.
y -> 10^bb /. z -> 10^cc, {aa, -3, 3}, {bb, -3, 3}, {cc, -3, 3}]

give me the following error:

RegionPlot3D::boolf: "{x>1&&y<z,x<1&&y>z}/. x->10^aa/. y->10^bb/. z->10^cc must be a Boolean function."

How is this possible? Since was working in 2D, what0s the difference between RegionPlot and RegionPlot3D that doesn't make this work?
Thanks a lot!
3:16 PM
@Yyrkoon AFAIK RegionPlot3D does not know what to do with a list of boolean functions, it needs a boolean function just like it says. This is different from RegionPlot which if given a list of boolean functions will plot them separately.
@Pickett I see, so the only way is to to a map over the list of boolean functions??
@Yyrkoon I think so.
@Pickett Ok, thank you very much! it has been really helpful, was totally not getting how this was wrong!
3:50 PM
@halirutan fixed in the development version
1 hour later…
4:53 PM
@Guillochon Please post a question with a reproducible example if you have not done so already.
3 hours later…
7:56 PM
@Mr.Wizard Wish I could, but this is a calculation that takes several hours to complete. The kernels seem to die when they're running for a long time.
8:16 PM
@Guillochon Possibly would this method be of use to you?:
A: Running bits of code in a separate kernel

Mr.WizardAfter a bit of consideration I recommend that you use ParallelSubmit and related functionality, e.g. WaitAll. Please consider this example: job = Array[ParallelSubmit[Pause[1]; If[Random[] > 0.7, Quit[]]; Print[#]] &, 10] This creates a series EvaluationObject tasks to perform. Within each...

@Mr.Wizard That looks like an excellent thing to try, thanks!
@Guillochon You're welcome. Let me know what happens.

« first day (1220 days earlier)      last day (3310 days later) »