On Thu, 15 May 2008, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:42 PM, John H Palmieri
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 15, 9:56 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:48 PM, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
On May 15, 10:57 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:42 PM, John H Palmieri
>
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 9:56 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:48 PM, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:42 PM, John H Palmieri
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 15, 9:56 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:48 PM, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Is this a bug?
>>
>> > sage: 3 == pi
>> > 3 == pi
>> > sa
William Stein wrote:
> Hi Sage-Devel,
>
> I just noticed that if you type "sage math" into google (no quotes)
> then you get us first (of course),
> but you also get links to Download, Tutorial, Screen shots,
> Documentation, etc., all below. That's
> something I think we have *not* had before,
Hi Sage-Devel,
I just noticed that if you type "sage math" into google (no quotes)
then you get us first (of course),
but you also get links to Download, Tutorial, Screen shots,
Documentation, etc., all below. That's
something I think we have *not* had before, and something we've
wondered how to
I thought I would publicly state my own plans on this front, and some
recent developments.
Polymake is undergoing some architectural changes that may or may not
make it more attractive for inclusion in sage. Their developers
estimate the new release as sometime in the summer, maybe as early as
J
I think it might just be possible to get down to the speed of Magma
with a highly optimised classical multiplication routine. At 3600X3600
one clearly has to do 3600x3600 scalar products of a row by a column.
We'll assume one of the matrices has been transposed to facilitate
this.
If we use SSE2
On May 16, 1:50 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Michael (cc: sage-devel and bcc: some sponsors),
Feel free to forward since there is no BCC in Google groups ;)
> What's the quick status on:
>
> * OS X 64-bit porting
Cleaning up patches. One crash issue related to libSingular
Hi Michael (cc: sage-devel and bcc: some sponsors),
What's the quick status on:
* OS X 64-bit porting
* Cygwin porting
* MSVC porting
* Solaris porting
* Itanium porting
I want to jump into something (and maybe get others to), but I don't know
which to do.
Frankly, I think that now t
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:23 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not disagreeing but want to point out one difference.
> RR is an ordered field and this fact is used to differentiate between
> i and -i. However, a finite field such as GF(5) is not, so there is
> some ambiguity to i
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:00 PM, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The fact that i is not in CC doesn't bother me too much, since i is a
> "formal square root of -1":
>
> sage: i in CC
> False
>
> I can force it to be in CC by doing this:
>
> sage: CC(i)
> 1.00*I
>
> B
I'm not disagreeing but want to point out one difference.
RR is an ordered field and this fact is used to differentiate between
i and -i. However, a finite field such as GF(5) is not, so there is
some ambiguity to i. It seems to me that this should be resolved somehow.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:0
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2008, at 8:21 AM, Bjake Hammersholt Roune wrote:
>
>>> [...] people are confused that when
>>> they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), for example, that the
>>> echelon_form is not the rref output tha
On May 15, 2008, at 8:21 AM, Bjake Hammersholt Roune wrote:
>> [...] people are confused that when
>> they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), for example, that the
>> echelon_form is not the rref output that they get from most any other
>> program they have ever used [...]
>> What do peopl
On Thursday 15 May 2008, Bill Hart wrote:
> Here is the graph of Magma times:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/flint-trunk/graphing/gf2.png
>
> The crossover is not clear. The change from a smooth curve to a
> squiggly line is about 3600. So presumably that is it, but the graph
> al
The fact that i is not in CC doesn't bother me too much, since i is a
"formal square root of -1":
sage: i in CC
False
I can force it to be in CC by doing this:
sage: CC(i)
1.00*I
But then I think I should be able to do this:
sage: GF(5)(i)
Someone who knows more number
Here is the graph of Magma times:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/flint-trunk/graphing/gf2.png
The crossover is not clear. The change from a smooth curve to a
squiggly line is about 3600. So presumably that is it, but the graph
also seems to change character at about 6200 or 7000 as
> >> What do people think about making the default ring for matrices QQ?
>
> > I have no objections to making QQ the defailt ring for matrices.
>
> I do. That's definitely *not* the proposal. The proposal is to make the
> base ring the fraction field of the canonical ring in which the list of
>
Oh, actually I have no idea where Magma's crossover is. I'll wager it
is somewhere between 4000x4000 and 6000x6000, but let's not speculate.
I'll try and work it out with some timings.
Bill.
On 15 May, 22:23, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thursday 15 May 2008, Bill Hart wrote:
On Thursday 15 May 2008, Bill Hart wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Do you think Magma uses naive multiplication for its base case? This
> can be ridicoulously fast, especially over GF2. I note for example
> that Magma's base case is about 6 times faster than M4RI at 1000x1000.
> Is it possible that the naive
Martin,
Do you think Magma uses naive multiplication for its base case? This
can be ridicoulously fast, especially over GF2. I note for example
that Magma's base case is about 6 times faster than M4RI at 1000x1000.
Is it possible that the naive multiplication can just be optimised
with a far bett
Nils Bruin wrote:
> -1. While I agree that defaulting to matrices over QQ rather than over
> ZZ would lead to more expected behaviour for most users, I don't see
> how the rule for changing the base ring can be made both consistent
> and cheap.
>
> Imagine R1 = QQ[x,y]/(x^2+y^2-1). Then FieldOfFr
I agree with Nick here. If we want to change the default behavior of
some functions so that they work the same as over the fraction field,
that's fine. But don't add a call to fraction field to the
constructor. ZZ is the initial object in the category of rings.
That's a good reason for it to be
On Thursday 15 May 2008, Bill Hart wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Here is a run that illustrates the problem. Am I doing something
> wrong?
No, I was stupid. The cpucycles are printed as %u but they should be printed
as %llu since they are longer than an int. I've attached the fixed C file
(since it is
Hi Martin,
Here is a run that illustrates the problem. Am I doing something
wrong?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/m4ri-20080514/testsuite> time ./
bench_multiplication 5000 2048
n: 5000, cutoff: 2048, cpu cycles: 2670143764
real0m2.768s
user0m2.760s
sys 0m0.008s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/m4ri-2008
> > It'll run the experiment 17 times (17 for no particular reason) and
> > return the median runtime. -n is the size and -c the cutoff.
> Median? Shouldn't you take the minimum? Are there any good papers
> on benchmarking?
I'm using cpucycles from:
http://www.ecrypt.eu.org/ebats/cpucycles.ht
-1. While I agree that defaulting to matrices over QQ rather than over
ZZ would lead to more expected behaviour for most users, I don't see
how the rule for changing the base ring can be made both consistent
and cheap.
Imagine R1 = QQ[x,y]/(x^2+y^2-1). Then FieldOfFractions(R1) is well-
defined,
I don't know my schedule for September yet but I consider to attend and I
could also give a talk if there is interest. My impression is that I had
trouble 'selling' Sage to an audience which cares more about say floating
point numbers than GF(2) in the past but that can only improve. On the oth
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Martin Albrecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 15 May 2008, Bill Hart wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> The cycle counter in your bench code seems to give random values on
>> the 2.4GHz Opteron with SUSE 9 linux that I have access to, which has
>> Magma 2-14.
On Thursday 15 May 2008, Bill Hart wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> The cycle counter in your bench code seems to give random values on
> the 2.4GHz Opteron with SUSE 9 linux that I have access to, which has
> Magma 2-14.10 on it.
>
> Anyhow, here are the Magma times:
> > A := RandomMatrix(GF(2),10^4,10^4)
> Maybe you're doing something wrong?
This bug is fixed in:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/malb/spkgs/libm4ri-20080515.p0.spkg
Cheers,
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bre
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:05 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David, your wording implies that there was one leak. Robert Miller and I sat
> down for an hour a day every day for about 2 weeks, and fixed a number of
> leaks every time. We eventually lost steam, because we didn't make an
> a
David, your wording implies that there was one leak. Robert Miller and I sat
down for an hour a day every day for about 2 weeks, and fixed a number of leaks
every time. We eventually lost steam, because we didn't make an appreciable
dent in the number of memory leaks. Rather than 'leak', Leo
Agreed. It is too slow.
Guava now (very recently) has C code which computes min dist very fast
for binary and
ternary codes (codes from graphs are binary, so this would apply). However, it
has not yet been linked to in SAGE. Why? There was a period when Michael said
that the Leon code was leaking
> I'm not sure I understand the problem. Here is an example session in
> Sage 3.0.1. Can you change this to illustrate what you mean?
>
Sorry, Jason, the example was sort of buried in my post. Here is a
concise version.
sage: A=matrix(QQ,3,range(9))
sage: A
[0 1 2]
[3 4 5]
[6 7 8]
sage: A.r
William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Bjake Hammersholt Roune
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...] people are confused that when
>>> they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), for example, that the
>>> echelon_form is not the rref output that they get from most any other
>>
Bjake Hammersholt Roune wrote:
>> [...] people are confused that when
>> they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), for example, that the
>> echelon_form is not the rref output that they get from most any other
>> program they have ever used [...]
>> What do people think about making the defau
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What do people think about making the default ring for matrices QQ?
>
> I'm not certain why I dislike this so much, but I vote -1. I think
> it's because I understand the Sage coercion model well and since I
> know wh
> What do people think about making the default ring for matrices QQ?
I'm not certain why I dislike this so much, but I vote -1. I think
it's because I understand the Sage coercion model well and since I
know what to expect, I appreciate my data starting at the "lowest
level of the model".
kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On May 15, 10:55 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Jason Grout
>>
>>
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Jason Grout wrote:
Based on some conversations with linear algebra people and classroom
demonstrations in
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Bjake Hammersholt Roune
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [...] people are confused that when
>> they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), for example, that the
>> echelon_form is not the rref output that they get from most any other
>> program they have ever us
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:16 AM, kcrisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 15, 10:55 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Jason Grout
>>
>>
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Jason Grout wrote:
>> >> Based on some conversations with line
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:15 AM, didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Jason Grout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> More concisely, this proposal could be worded:
>>
>> What do people think of making matrix() return a matrix over a field by
>> default,
didier deshommes wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Jason Grout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> More concisely, this proposal could be worded:
>>
>> What do people think of making matrix() return a matrix over a field by
>> default, unless a ring is explicitly specified. The default fi
> [...] people are confused that when
> they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), for example, that the
> echelon_form is not the rref output that they get from most any other
> program they have ever used [...]
> What do people think about making the default ring for matrices QQ?
>
I have no
On May 15, 10:55 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Jason Grout
>
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jason Grout wrote:
> >> Based on some conversations with linear algebra people and classroom
> >> demonstrations in a linear algebra class, peop
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Jason Grout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More concisely, this proposal could be worded:
>
> What do people think of making matrix() return a matrix over a field by
> default, unless a ring is explicitly specified. The default field would
> either be the fract
On May 15, 4:20 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> matrix(3, range(9)) would yield a matrix over QQ
+1
many just use integers as cheap examples but in fact use them over QQ
h
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegr
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Jason Grout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jason Grout wrote:
>> Based on some conversations with linear algebra people and classroom
>> demonstrations in a linear algebra class, people are confused that when
>> they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), for ex
Jason Grout wrote:
> Based on some conversations with linear algebra people and classroom
> demonstrations in a linear algebra class, people are confused that when
> they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), for example, that the
> echelon_form is not the rref output that they get from mos
I think this is a good idea.
-M. Hampton
On May 15, 8:20 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on some conversations with linear algebra people and classroom
> demonstrations in a linear algebra class, people are confused that when
> they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), fo
Based on some conversations with linear algebra people and classroom
demonstrations in a linear algebra class, people are confused that when
they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), for example, that the
echelon_form is not the rref output that they get from most any other
program they h
Hi Nick A.,
According to
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/989
it looks like you introduced this "nodetex" stuff. Maybe
you could look at the issue described below and open
a trac ticket.
-- william
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM, John H Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
Hi David,
Here is some "non-fan mail" about codes in Sage from Africa. Any
comments?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Khumbo Kumwenda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Subject: used sage
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
I have used sage in an essay I am writing
Hi Martin,
The cycle counter in your bench code seems to give random values on
the 2.4GHz Opteron with SUSE 9 linux that I have access to, which has
Magma 2-14.10 on it.
Anyhow, here are the Magma times:
> A := RandomMatrix(GF(2),10^4,10^4);
> B := RandomMatrix(GF(2),10^4,10^4);
> t := Cputime(
I've just started tinkering with Sage. So far it seems very
promising.
I have a request.
Would anyone like to give a talk on Sage at PyCon UK 2008? It's in
Birmingham on 2008-09-12 through to 2008-09-14.
My connection with PyCon UK is that I spoke last year, am intending to
speak this year, a
On Thursday 15 May 2008, William Stein wrote:
> > Btw. I don't have access to Magma 2.14 which I believe to be the fastest
> > in linear algebra over GF(2). In version 2.14 they added SSE2 support
> > too. So if anybody could compare the new M4RI with Magma 2.14 I'd be
> > happy to hear about the
57 matches
Mail list logo
