I just did 'first' and 'third' right now, because they were the ones I
could do quickly right now. 'Fifth' does look promising, except that
when I looked at the install script earlier I was under the impression
that those patches were only applied if the processor was either a core
2 or an amd64.
Last update, 2005?
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> Hi Didier,
>
> Thanks. I also just found:
>
> http://www.nongnu.org/hpalib/
>
> which fascinates me. Has anyone used it?
>
> Bill.
>
>
> On 31 Jul, 01:46, "didier deshommes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2007/7/30, Bill Hart <[EMAIL P
h okay there's a few pedantic things I'd like to check.
First, in some of the samples below you had the include directory
wrong, e.g.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/temp$ g++ partitions_c.cc -O3
> -L/home/bober/sage-2.7.1/sage-2.7.1/local/lib
> -I/home/bober/sage-2.7.1/sage-2.7.1/local/lib -lmpfr
I didn't compile the Ubuntu version myself, but I did compile the
versions with the timings listed last in the email.
I don't want to attach all of this to the list, so see
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~bober/sage_stuff/
for the output from configure and make for these builds of gmp and mpfr,
Hi Didier,
Thanks. I also just found:
http://www.nongnu.org/hpalib/
which fascinates me. Has anyone used it?
Bill.
On 31 Jul, 01:46, "didier deshommes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/7/30, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I have a similar problem in some code I am currently
> > writin
Did you compile the ubuntu GMP library yourself, or do they come as
packaged binaries? (sorry I don't know anything about ubuntu)
If you compiled them yourself, what is the CFLAGS string that GMP's
configure program produces? Is it the same as what the GMP inside SAGE
produces? In fact it woul
2007/7/30, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have a similar problem in some code I am currently
> writing. I need precisely quad precision, so mpfr is out of the
> question.
Hi Bill,
You might want to consider Yozo Hida's quaddouble C/C++ package here:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~yozo/
There is
On 31 Jul, 01:24, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be interesting to see the time for Mathematica on a 32 bit
> X86 machine, since this would tell us if that is what they do.
Doh! I should have read William's timings more carefully. He gives the
times for a 32 bit machine. So I g
Here are some examples of timings with different compilation options.
(I'm using 3*10^8) here because it takes long enough to see the
difference, but short enough to conveniently run lots of tests.
After running hg_sage.pull() to get the newest version, of the code, I
get:
sage: time a = number
Wow!! Excellent work indeed.
In fact on 64 bit X86 systems you could actually use the 128 bit long
doubles to give you a little bit more precision (I believe it only
gives you 80 bits including exponent and sign, so probably 64 bit
mantissa).
It would be interesting to see the time for Mathemati
On Jul 30, 2007, at 12:45 PM, Soroosh Yazdani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to implement scalar division in sage, and I'm starting
> to get a bit confused about the class hierarchy. I believe that a
> while ago there was some discussion about the class hierarchy, but
> I have no idea what th
2007/7/30, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi Didier,
>
> I hope you don't mind that I have some remarks about your patches
Not at all! I am just poking my way through the multivariate code and
any input from someone more knowledgeable than me would be greatly
appreciated.
>
> The R.ran
Short answer: This has occurred to me, and I don't think that it is the
problem.
I'll try to document this carefully and give a more detailed answer
later.
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 14:25 -0700, William Stein wrote:
> On 7/30/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, I haven't been followi
On Jul 30, 12:26 pm, "didier deshommes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/7/30, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > It seems pretty strange to me, mostly because you lose too much
> > information by eliding zeroes. As far as I can tell, given
> > MPolynomialRing(QQ,2,order='lex'), all of the fo
On 7/30/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I haven't been following closely, but I wonder if it's a static vs
> shared thing. But usually that shouldn't account for such a large
> difference, so that's probably not the issue.
Do you build and link in the dynamic version of GMP? Th
Hi, I haven't been following closely, but I wonder if it's a static vs
shared thing. But usually that shouldn't account for such a large
difference, so that's probably not the issue.
david
On Jul 30, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Jonathan Bober wrote:
>
> Update: I've just been looking at this some more,
Update: I've just been looking at this some more, having realized that
sage creates a detailed install.log file, and I can't find any
significant difference between the compiler options used when sage
compiles gmp and when I compile gmp manually.
In particular, they both identify the processor th
On 7/30/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the situation is similar to how one can legally use a program from
> > bash -- but are there weird legal issues with doing this:
> > sage: mathematica(2) + gap(2)
> > 4
>
> Related to that, I wonder whether implementing something li
From: "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> the situation is similar to how one can legally use a program from
> bash -- but are there weird legal issues with doing this:
> sage: mathematica(2) + gap(2)
> 4
Related to that, I wonder whether implementing something like
number_of_partition
Hi,
I am trying to implement scalar division in sage, and I'm starting to get a
bit confused about the class hierarchy. I believe that a while ago there was
some discussion about the class hierarchy, but I have no idea what the
results were, and I figured I will just ask my questions here.
First,
2007/7/30, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It seems pretty strange to me, mostly because you lose too much
> information by eliding zeroes. As far as I can tell, given
> MPolynomialRing(QQ,2,order='lex'), all of the following polynomials:
>
> 3*x^2 + 1
> 3*x^5 + x
> 3*y^7 + 1
> 3*y + 1
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 01:21 -0700, William Stein wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Jonathan Bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > While timing the code that I wrote to compute p(n), I noticed that, in
> > the latest version, it computes p(10^9) in:
> >
> > - approximately 2m 30s if I link to the gmp and mpfr
On Jul 27, 9:20 pm, didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there,
> I'm trying to work with multivariate polynomials in SAGE and here are
> 3 features that I would like. Assume f is a multi-poly:
> * f.coefficients() for multivariate polynomials. I would like to get
> all the coefficie
William,
In the discussion
Problem building "linbox" on Gentoo Linux (gcc 4.2.0)
you stated:
: There is also http://sagemath.org/SAGEbin/linux/64bit/
: however that binary is not built against ATLAS, whereas if
: you have ATLAS on your system and build SAGE from source
: you'll get a SAGE
On 7/30/07, Jonathan Bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While timing the code that I wrote to compute p(n), I noticed that, in
> the latest version, it computes p(10^9) in:
>
> - approximately 2m 30s if I link to the gmp and mpfr included in Ubuntu
> (gmp version 3.something, I think)
>
> - appro
Hi Didier,
I hope you don't mind that I have some remarks about your patches
The f.coefficients() patch is only against MPolynomial_libsingular but is
implemented generally enough to be pushed down to MPolynomial such that
MPolynomial_polydict may benefit from it as well. Also, using f.dict()
Hello.
While timing the code that I wrote to compute p(n), I noticed that, in
the latest version, it computes p(10^9) in:
- approximately 2m 30s if I link to the gmp and mpfr included in Ubuntu
(gmp version 3.something, I think)
- approximately 3m 30s if I link to the gmp and mpfr included in s
27 matches
Mail list logo
