[sage-devel] Re: Multivariate polynomial benchmark

2007-02-27 Thread Martin Albrecht
Hi, I have a couple of suggestions for the benchmarks. > I would suggest something along the following lines for the MVPoly > benchmark: > > Have a matrix of test cases: > > *number of indeterminates: > - small (3 indeterminates) > - medium (10 indeterminates) > - large (25 indeterminates)

[sage-devel] Re: sage-2.2-alpha

2007-02-27 Thread Jaap Spies
William Stein wrote: > Hi, > > I've put sage-2.2.alpha3 here: > >http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/pkgs/ > > Any build feedback will be appreciated (except on sage.math -- I'm > already building there...) > real60m19.773s user50m27.940s sys 7m7.225s To install gap, gp,

[sage-devel] Re: NetworkX Development

2007-02-27 Thread Robert Miller
Aric, I've been working in a few different directions lately: 1- I'm working on a C implementation of the base class structure, which will vastly speed up many algorithms. I'm not sure whether you want to keep everything in Python or not, but Python is great at interfacing C. 2- I'm reading Brend

[sage-devel] sage-2.2-alpha

2007-02-27 Thread William Stein
Hi, I've put sage-2.2.alpha3 here: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/pkgs/ Any build feedback will be appreciated (except on sage.math -- I'm already building there...) -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington --~--~-~--~~---

[sage-devel] Multivariate polynomial benchmark

2007-02-27 Thread mabshoff
Hello, I did exchange a couple emails with Martin Albrecht over the last couple days about the benchmarks he did comparing multivariate polynomial arithmetic in Singular and Magma. I then did run some of the benchmarks with CoCoALib 0.97CVS and I had some suggestions on how to do things different

[sage-devel] Re: quad double timings and accuracy

2007-02-27 Thread didier deshommes
On 2/26/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shouldn't the error on a quad double be way smaller than this? I'm > not sure what specific numbers you're operating on, but if your > answers are on the order of 10^0, then shouldn't you have around 63 > decimal digits of accuracy, rather

[sage-devel] Re: sage-2.2

2007-02-27 Thread William Stein
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 7:19 am, Jaap Spies wrote: > William Stein wrote: > > make the official release of 2.2. I'll hopefully make an alpha release > > sometime tonight, which people can build and test out. > > On FC 5: > >

[sage-devel] Re: sage-2.2

2007-02-27 Thread Jaap Spies
William Stein wrote: > make the official release of 2.2. I'll hopefully make an alpha release > sometime tonight, which people can build and test out. On FC 5: -- All tests passed! Total time for all tests: 911.3 seconds [EMAI

[sage-devel] Re: quad double timings and accuracy

2007-02-27 Thread William Stein
On Monday 26 February 2007 7:18 pm, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > Shouldn't the error on a quad double be way smaller than this? I'm > not sure what specific numbers you're operating on, but if your > answers are on the order of 10^0, then shouldn't you have around 63 > decimal digits of accuracy, rath

[sage-devel] Re: compiling sage_c_lib-2.1.4

2007-02-27 Thread William Stein
Thanks. I've put these in sage-2.2. On 2/27/07, Carl Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > compiling /sage_c_lib-2.1.4 > > the problem: > In file included from > /opt2/local/sage-2.1.4/local/include/python2.5/Python.h:8, > from src/stdsage.h:35, > from src/interrupt.c:13: > /opt2/local/sage-2.1.

[sage-devel] compiling sage_c_lib-2.1.4

2007-02-27 Thread Carl Hansen
compiling /sage_c_lib-2.1.4 the problem: In file included from /opt2/local/sage-2.1.4/local/include/python2.5/Python.h:8, from src/stdsage.h:35, from src/interrupt.c:13: /opt2/local/sage-2.1.4/local/include/python2.5/pyconfig.h:917:1: warning: "_FILE_OFFSET_BITS" redefined In file included from