Hi! On Jul 9, 12:39 pm, Lloyd Kilford <l.kilf...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... > There is a significant difference here.
Not good. Unfortunately, using _factor_cunningham would not help in this case. Even after installing the optional cunningham_tables-1.0.spkg, I get sage: %time c._factor_cunningham() CPU times: user 247.88 s, sys: 0.48 s, total: 248.36 s Wall time: 248.76 s 2^5 * 3 * 5^3 * 11 * 13 * 17 * 41 * 101 * 701 * 1061 * 1171 * 1801 * 5101 * 95191 * 10332211 * 10928101 * 484075001 * 8151355651 * 56592946951 * 577700122751 * 3582676889101 * 61787838410341 * 7067700288486601 * 44598886554623988985262651 * 20551228788109132062441192793719196434330727301 versus sage: %time factor(c) CPU times: user 247.58 s, sys: 0.28 s, total: 247.86 s Wall time: 247.95 s 2^5 * 3 * 5^3 * 11 * 13 * 17 * 41 * 101 * 701 * 1061 * 1171 * 1801 * 5101 * 95191 * 10332211 * 10928101 * 484075001 * 8151355651 * 56592946951 * 577700122751 * 3582676889101 * 61787838410341 * 7067700288486601 * 44598886554623988985262651 * 20551228788109132062441192793719196434330727301 So, no improvement using specialised code, and far worse than magma. Cheers, Simon -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
