> Is it still true that Perry is working on putting a version in Singular?
I personally am not writing the code. I did offer, but Christian Eder, a student at the University of Kaiserslautern, has the primary responsibility. (I had worked with him on the original toy implementation as an interpreted library in Singular.) I understand that the Singular team is very interested in getting this going. I am also very interested in the completion of the basic F5, because I would like to see how some improvements that Chris & I developed will work in a compiled environment instead of our toy implementation. Every now and again I ask Chris about the progress and he says it's coming along. I understand that he has a regular job as a schoolteacher, and cannot work on it full time. regards john perry PS: Martin & Simon did not mention that their toy implementations in Sage were faster than the toy implementation in Singular. > Even so, if someone improves the cython version it seems > possible that it could become very competitive. > > -M. Hampton > > On Oct 22, 11:26 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Martin Albrecht > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 22 October 2008, Simon King wrote: > > >> Dear Team, > > > >> at SD 10, Martin Albrecht and I implemented the F5 algorithm according > > >> to John Perry's pseudocode. The two implementations are at > > >>http://wiki.sagemath.org/days10/CodingSprint > > >> attachment f5.py (Martin's pure python implementation) respectively > > >> f5.pyx (my cython implementation). > > > >> These are only toy implementations that clearly can't compete with > > >> Singular: > > >> f5.pyx f5.py > > >> Cyclic-6 8.78s 22.44s > > >> Katsura-5 lex 93.85s 428.52s > > >> Katsura-7 degrevlex 4.21s 7.86s > > > > btw. Singular: 0.3, 0.02, 0.35 > > > >> Nevertheless: There already is a toy implementation of Buchberger's > > >> algorithm in Sage. So, do you think the toy-F5 shall be included as > > >> well? > > > > The question is: What purpose would such an implementation have: > > > (a) educational (i.e. quite read-able/hack-able code) > > > (b) coverage (i.e. provide GB calculations for fields Singular doesn't > > > support) > > > > The current toy Buchberger provides both (which is probably unfortunate). > > > If > > > (a) is the focus then I guess my code is more suitable while the above > > > timing > > > suggest to use Simon's code if (b) is desired. > > > My vote would be for both to be included and SImon's code to be attached > > (ie, the default). But maybe f5.py could use a bit more documentation > > in some parts > > (since it is for educational uses)? > > > > Cheers, > > > Martin > > > > PS: I suspect that there is some memleak in my code, contributing to the > > > exceptionally poor performance. I never got around checking this. > > > > -- > > > name: Martin Albrecht > > > _pgp:http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 > > > _www:http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb > > > _jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
