Sweet, Burcin. I'll check out your patch. Can you increase the derivative orders to 20 something?
Alex On Nov 23, 7:30 am, Burcin Erocal <bur...@erocal.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:02:16 +0100 > > Burcin Erocal <bur...@erocal.org> wrote: > > I can't believe I'm looking at these hashes for the third time. I > > finally took some time to think about this, and found an (almost) > > perfect hash function to replace my previous braindead implementation. > > I hope we won't run into this problem again. :) > > > This is now #7508: > > >http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7508 > > There is a new pynac package linked from that ticket. You need to apply > the patch from #7490 before you can run Sage with it. > > The new hash function doesn't have any collisions for a symbolic > function with 10 arguments, up to derivatives of order 11. I used a > customized FNV hash [1], with a prime multiplier chosen to accommodate > the low integer values we get for each entry of the parameter set. > > [1]http://isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/ > > Cheers, > Burcin -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
