I don't know of any algorithms to find the radical of an integer
quickly (indeed I believe there aren't any) but here are some ideas I
have.
First, if you're dabbling in cython, try making your primessq into a
cdef long*. This should speed things up significantly. If your
calling from oth
On Oct 9, 10:22 pm, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all:
>
> I was hoping you could help me with this unbelievably trivial problem.
>
> Fix an integer B of size about 10 decimal digits, so too big to be an
> unsigned long int but not much bigger.
>
> PROBLEM: Given an integer d of s
I decided on something like this:
-
cimport sage.rings.integer
primessq = [4, 9, 25, 49, 121, 169, 289, 361, 529, 841, 961, 1369,
1681, 1849,
2209, 2809, 3481, 3721, 4489, 5041, 5329, 6241, 6889,
7921, 9409]
len_primes = 25
def int_has_small_square_divisor(sage.rings.integer.In
Hello all:
I was hoping you could help me with this unbelievably trivial problem.
Fix an integer B of size about 10 decimal digits, so too big to be an
unsigned long int but not much bigger.
PROBLEM: Given an integer d of size maybe 10-15 decimal digits, return
True or False according as there
Actually, perhaps it is only O(n^2) now. Whatever it is, it is better
anyway.
Bill.
On 10 Oct, 04:24, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I've fixed this problem now. FLINT takes just 0.032s for the
> original problem I noted at the start of the thread of powering a
> degree 1 polynomials
OK, I've fixed this problem now. FLINT takes just 0.032s for the
original problem I noted at the start of the thread of powering a
degree 1 polynomials. It's about three times faster than Magma now, so
that should be good enough.
It basically boiled down to the algorithm I was using. It was O(n^3
On Oct 9, 8:27 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/9/07, Iftikhar Burhanuddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, William Stein wrote:
> > > I think the memory leaks that we identified before (which involve ntl
> > > strings, etc.)
> > > only *maybe* got f
On 10/9/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> sage -t devel/sage-main/sage/libs/cf/cf.pyx
> Total time for all tests: 1684.6 seconds
>
Delete that. We don't use cf.pyx anymore in Sage. I've deleted then one
on sage.math.
-- William
--~--~-~--~~~-
William Stein wrote:
>
> Fortunately any Sage install is very good at tracking its entire upgrade
> history. On sage.math do this:
>
> cd /home/was/sage/spkg/installed
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/sage/spkg/installed$ ls -1l sage-*
This is the record of my system wide installations on /usr/local/
Ifti,
By the way, you should be use dsage for the sort of calculation that you're
doing. I highly recommend you learn it and switch to using it. Not only
will it make it so you can trivially make the calculation run on lots
of machines
(by attaching workers dynamically), but it also will remove
On 10/9/07, Iftikhar Burhanuddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, William Stein wrote:
> > I think the memory leaks that we identified before (which involve ntl
> > strings, etc.)
> > only *maybe* got fixed in Sage-2.8.6, and certainly weren't fixed in
> > sage-2.8.5.1,
> > so if y
On Oct 9, 2007, at 8:10 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On 10/9/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I'm working on bringing __call__ into the coercion framework.
>>> Unlike coerce, we need to worry about additional arguments besides
>>> just the object x to be cast into the parent (I've
I build a binary for Linux PPC 32 - all the tests pass. Once it made
it to sage.math I will let William know.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EM
Hello,
I've posted the video of Robert Bradshaw's Sage Days 5 talk on Cython
at Google Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8155731528590036456&hl=en
The slides for the talk are here:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/days5/sched?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=cython-status-07.pdf
--
On 10/9/07, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >rdef foo(...)
> >
> > Hey, what's wrong with "rdef"? An rdef'd method is like a cdef'd
> > one, but it
> > can be redefined in a derived class with a def or cdef method?
>
> I like dynamic languages that allow me to change everything, s
>rdef foo(...)
>
> Hey, what's wrong with "rdef"? An rdef'd method is like a cdef'd
> one, but it
> can be redefined in a derived class with a def or cdef method?
I like dynamic languages that allow me to change everything, so why
not make the default cdef over-loadable and have a "stati
On 10/9/07, jmakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. I just wanted to check the status on these things and get some
> advice wether or not one should think in that direction. Do any teams
> exists that are working on this problem? If so I would like to join
> them.
>
There's something called dsage
On 10/9/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm working on bringing __call__ into the coercion framework.
> > Unlike coerce, we need to worry about additional arguments besides
> > just the object x to be cast into the parent (I've included the
> > list of all parent __call__ method
On Tuesday 09 October 2007, Jaap Spies wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> What is the status of the polybori package scheduled for inclusion in
> sage-2.9.1?
>
> I have ideas for using it in an alternative algorithm for the
> calculation of the permanent of m x n (m <=n) (0,1)-matrices.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jaap
Hi Martin,
What is the status of the polybori package scheduled for inclusion in
sage-2.9.1?
I have ideas for using it in an alternative algorithm for the
calculation of the permanent of m x n (m <=n) (0,1)-matrices.
Thanks,
Jaap
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post
On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:44 PM, David Roe wrote:
> I'm working on bringing __call__ into the coercion framework.
> Unlike coerce, we need to worry about additional arguments besides
> just the object x to be cast into the parent (I've included the
> list of all parent __call__ methods currentl
21 matches
Mail list logo
