Simon gave me some hints how to integrate the new class into the category framework, so the ticket now *needs review* hint hint:
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15976 On Wednesday 19 Mar 2014 17:38:42 Martin Albrecht wrote: > Next update: > > I decided that the 2012 Sage GSoC project [^1] wasn't worth the trouble, so > I started afresh [^2]. The result is available as; > > http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15976 > > It's fairly straight-forward and only realises integer lattices, i.e. > subgroups of ZZ^n (I don't care about the more general RR^n case and I > haven't had any feedback motivating me to change that). There's a new class > which represents such lattices by a basis which is improved during the > life-time of the lattice object. > > This ticket also updates our fpLLL interface to the 4.0 API. While I was at > it I also interfaced fpLLL's BKZ and shortest vector enumeration. Hence, > Sage's BKZ got a bit faster in the process: > > sage: A = sage.crypto.gen_lattice(type='random', n=1, m=160, q=2^90, > seed=42) sage: %time A.BKZ(block_size=10)[0].norm().n() > CPU times: user 7.45 s, sys: 1.28 s, total: 8.73 s > Wall time: 8.73 s > 6.24499799839840 > sage: %time A.BKZ(block_size=10, algorithm="NTL")[0].norm().n() > CPU times: user 14.5 s, sys: 2.7 s, total: 17.2 s > Wall time: 17.2 s > 6.48074069840786 > > Here's a shortest vector example: > > sage: A = sage.crypto.gen_lattice(type='random', n=1, m=44, q=2^90, seed=42) > sage: L = Lattice(A) > sage: %time L.shortest_vector(algorithm="pari") > CPU times: user 11.9 s, sys: 660 ms, total: 12.6 s > Wall time: 12.6 s > (0, 1, 1, -2, 1, -1, 1, 1, 0, -1, 1, -1, 2, 0, 0, 1, 1, -1, 1, 1, 0, -1, 0, > 0, 0, 1, -2, -1, 0, 0, 1, -1, 1, 3, 0, -1, 0, 1, -1, -2, 1, 0, -1, -1) > > sage: L = Lattice(A) > sage: %time L.shortest_vector(algorithm="fplll") # default > CPU times: user 3.31 s, sys: 0 ns, total: 3.31 s > Wall time: 3.31 s > (0, 1, 1, -2, 1, -1, 1, 1, 0, -1, 1, -1, 2, 0, 0, 1, 1, -1, 1, 1, 0, -1, 0, > 0, 0, 1, -2, -1, 0, 0, 1, -1, 1, 3, 0, -1, 0, 1, -1, -2, 1, 0, -1, -1) > sage: > > > However, in terms of inheritance hierarchy and categories the new class is a > wasteland. The inheritance hierarchy is: > > sage.structure.sage_object.SageObject > sage.lattices.integer_lattices.IntegerLattice > > Any recommendations what the new class should inherit from? I guess I could > at least introduce a generic lattice class that IntegerLattice would > inherit from, like this? > > sage.structure.sage_object.SageObject > sage.lattices.lattices.Lattice > sage.lattices.integer_lattices.IntegerLattice > > Cheers, > Martin > > [1] Btw. I still haven't managed to contact the people responsible for that > project yet to find out what went wrong. Neither student nor mentor have > replied to my e-mail yet. > > [2] I did import the diamond cutting implementation > > On Sunday 16 Mar 2014 20:49:22 Martin Albrecht wrote: > > Okay, I imported the code base from > > > > https://github.com/poeschko/sage > > > > here: > > http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15955 > > > > I really couldn't be bothered to import patch by patch as the original > > author made an interesting - let's ignore Sage's version control - choice. > > So all his commits are in one big commit. > > > > Well, almost all: > > > > - I fixed some things to adapt the patches to the current version of Sage > > and - I didn't import the hack (I think it is) which allows to deal with > > this situation: > > > > sage: A = Matrix(ZZ, [[4,2,0],[2,1,0],[0,0,1]]) > > sage: A.LLL_gram() > > ... > > ValueError: a matrix from Full MatrixSpace of 3 by 2 dense matrices over > > Integer Ring cannot be converted to a matrix in Full MatrixSpace of 3 by 3 > > dense matrices over Integer Ring! > > > > I'm not sure what should be done about this. In any case, I'd appreciate a > > second set of eyes on this. Clearly, there's work to be done. > > > > Cheers, > > Martin > > > > On Thursday 13 Mar 2014 15:26:28 Burcin Erocal wrote: > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:56:41 +0000 > > > > > > Martin Albrecht <martinralbre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > what happened to the Sage 2012 GSoC project on lattices described > > > > > > > > here: > > > > http://gsoc-sage-lattices.blogspot.co.uk/ > > > > > > > > It doesn't seem to have been merged (?) I could use it to give my > > > > discrete Gaussian sampler over lattices code a home. > > > > > > The code is here: > > > > > > https://github.com/poeschko/sage > > > > > > AFAICT, it would require a nontrivial amount of work to merge. It was > > > based on Sage 5.2 IIRC. I don't know if there is a related ticket on > > > trac. > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Burcin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
