For comparison, here is our favourite non-free closed source package vs Pari and NTL for factoring with two large factors:
Magma vs Pari: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/flint-trunk/graphing/magpari-factor.png Magma vs NTL: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/flint-trunk/graphing/magNTL-factor.png Something that may not be fair here is that Magma factors the content, so I have divided the polynomials used by their content before factoring them. But I didn't include the time taken to divide by the content in the timing. Given that computing the content should be almost instant generically, I don't see this as much of a problem though. Bill. On 20 Dec, 18:46, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've redone both graphs since the generic NTL profiling code in FLINT > was assuming that a length n polynomial had n+1 coefficients (my > student had done this due to some confusion about the way coefficients > were counted). > > The graph for polynomials with two large factors (at least): > > http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/flint-trunk/graphing/fact... > > and the graph for generic polynomials: > > http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/flint-trunk/graphing/fact... > > Hopefully these are correct now. > > Bill. > > On 20 Dec, 17:49, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here is the graph for generic polynomials: > > >http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/flint-trunk/graphing/fact... > > > At about 1000 bits and length 6, NTL does seem to get ahead again. > > > Bill. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@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-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
