A typo: on page 11, replace "permutations groups" with "permutation groups".
On page 38, you say #sage-devel. You might also want to give the irc
server's address.
Looks like a great intro to Sage. Good luck with the talk.
-Bobby
On Nov 9, 2007 4:17 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Type
sage: Matrix?
And the file line tells you that its defined in sage/matrix/
constructor.py
- Robert
On Nov 9, 2007, at 4:22 PM, John Voight wrote:
>
> How do I use matrix (or Matrix?) inside python files which are
> compiled? Suppose I have a file:
>
> def my_matrix(d):
> return Ma
Oh, I didn't know I was going to get quoted! (That's fine, of
course.)
Are we suppose to write "SAGE" since it's an acronym or "Sage" like
you do?
JV
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
How do I use matrix (or Matrix?) inside python files which are
compiled? Suppose I have a file:
def my_matrix(d):
return Matrix(ZZ,d,d,[ [i+j for i in range(d)] for j in range(d)])
I include it in my favorite directory, and compile SAGE, and run:
sage: my_matrix(3)
Hi everybody,
The slides of Martin and my talk are available at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/tmp/talk/.
An accompanying SAGE worksheet can be found at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/malb/SAGE_Demo.sws
. Feedback is very welcome :-)
William
--
William Stein
Associate Professo
I just downloaded a new tarball from sage.math. JV
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co
On Nov 9, 2007 11:19 PM, Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I have implemented the Tonelli and Shanks algorithm which has a
> complexity of O(ln^4(p)) and appears to be amazing fast. So far its a
Could you post some cool impressive benchmarks? :-)
william
> quick and dirty implementatio
I tried to sage -upgrade my 2.8.9 this evening on an Ubuntu x686, and
I got:
Building sage/matrix/misc.c because it depends on sage/matrix/
misc.pyx.
touch sage/matrix/misc.pyx; cython --embed-positions --incref-local-
binop -I/home/kostadm/sage/devel/sage-main -o sage/matrix/misc.c sage/
matrix/
Hi, I have implemented the Tonelli and Shanks algorithm which has a
complexity of O(ln^4(p)) and appears to be amazing fast. So far its a
quick and dirty implementation directly in my Sage file and without
error handling. I will ask Martin (when meeting him next time in the
office) how to integrat
On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:52 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> There is without a doubt something fishy going on with coercion. See
> also malb's report with polynomial rings at
>
> http://www.sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/1046
Just to confirm, this is only the first time, right?
I am pretty sure this is becaus
I see. In my example a was
sage: type(a)
John
On 09/11/2007, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 9, 2007, at 1:43 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> > [Hello Robert -- are you in Bristol yet?]
>
> Just got in.
>
> > I'm puzzled now. My comment on inefficiency and Steffen's were ba
On Nov 9, 2007, at 1:43 PM, John Cremona wrote:
> [Hello Robert -- are you in Bristol yet?]
Just got in.
> I'm puzzled now. My comment on inefficiency and Steffen's were based
> on the code
>> for i from 0 <= i <= n/2:
>> if (i*i) % n == self.ivalue:
>>
[Hello Robert -- are you in Bristol yet?]
I'm puzzled now. My comment on inefficiency and Steffen's were based
on the code
> for i from 0 <= i <= n/2:
> if (i*i) % n == self.ivalue:
> return self._new_c(i)
>
but now when I do a.sqrt??
On Nov 9, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Steffen wrote:
> The easier %4 == 3 case seems to be implemented efficiently, but the
> %4 == 1 not. The algo from Tonelli and Shanks might be a good solution
> here. Any thoughts on other/better algorithm?
>
> Steffen
I actually wrote this code. It eventually dispat
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:07:03 -, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, somehow I knew this was going to become a trac ticket. It is
> also my suspicion that it is an optimization issue with number
> fields. It seems really bizarre that it should be calling a
> polynomial ring const
You are right, that is a really stupid algorithm for p=1 (mod 4)!
I will suggest this as something easy to be fixed at Sage Days 6
(which is just starting). One could either use pari to do the sqrt
more efficiently, or implement something like Tonelli-Shanks as you
suggest.
John
On 09/11/2007,
Thx, I am wondering why I did not try the command a.sqrt?? on my own.
However, it seems as the implemented algorithm is not the most
efficient one. My result from a.sqrt?? from the latest release:
def sqrt(self, extend=True, all=False):
cdef int_fast32_t i, n = self.__modulus.int32
Use the ?? operator to see the algorithm:
sage: a=GF(next_prime(10^6)).random_element()^2;
sage: a.sqrt??
Type: builtin_function_or_method
Base Class:
String Form:
Namespace: Interactive
Source:
def sqrt(self, extend=True, all=False):
r"""
Returns squ
On 11/7/07, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I've attached a 'random_monomial.py' to
>
>http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/980
>
> which implements Steffen's and my proposal.
Hey guys,
I've attached a patch for this at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/
Thanks, somehow I knew this was going to become a trac ticket. It is
also my suspicion that it is an optimization issue with number
fields. It seems really bizarre that it should be calling a
polynomial ring constructor!
(The cost right now is absolutely killing me right now. I've started
enum
Hi, I need to find square roots in GF(prime). I did it like this:
y = sqrt(GF(prime)(ySquare))
So far I am not quite happy with the calculation periods and I would
like to know which algorithm is used. In my case is prime % 4 == 1,
which is the hardest case to find the square root mod p. I am sa
Hi, I need to find square roots in GF(prime). I did it like this:
y = sqrt(GF(prime)(ySquare))
So far I am not quite happy with the calculation periods and I would
like to know which algorithm is used. In my case is prime % 4 == 1,
which is the hardest case to find the square root mod p. I am sa
On Nov 8, 2007 9:52 PM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Woah! Can someone explain to me the various calls above? I'd think
> > this should take epsilon time to coerce the elements of the sequence.
> > Or perhaps is there another better way to coerce into Z_F (or,
> > equivalently f
23 matches
Mail list logo
