On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Kurt wrote:
>
> Robert --
>
> I'm afraid that I did not take detailed notes of your talk at Dev
> Days 1.
> Is there documentation that shows how one ought to now implement
> coercion for brand new code?
> Perhaps a good example that we can all look to for guidance?
> I have applied the patch and rebuild LinBox and started running the
> test 500 times to see. Can you guess if/how much this patch does
> affect performance for charpoly mod p?
>
For the dimensions you are considering (and up to a thousand) I don't
expect any performance loss.
But the probabili
On Jul 18, 3:59 pm, Clement Pernet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have applied the patch and rebuild LinBox and started running the
> > test 500 times to see. Can you guess if/how much this patch does
> > affect performance for charpoly mod p?
>
> For the dimensions you are considering (and up
Thanks.
Besides the SAGE booth, here are other SAGE-related events at the DC meeting:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/ams-sage
http://wiki.sagemath.org/maa-sage
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:31 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just want to let people know that I definitely plan t
Hi,
I just want to let people know that I definitely plan to attend the AMS meeting
in DC in January 2009, and that there *will* be a Sage booth there.
-- William
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--~--~-~--~~--
I am looking into it.
Applying the patch at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/pernet/Patches/charpoly_LUK.patch
will disable the current probablistic charpoly algorithm.
This could help diagnose the origin of the bug.
Cheers
Clement
mabshoff a écrit :
>
>
> On Jul 17, 10:34 pm, mabshoff
2008/7/18 Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Just for the record, __nonzero__ is a Python special method, nothing
> to do with Parents/Elements.
What it has to do with Elements is that the current Element class
implements it. Nothing else.
>>> But I think this discussion does bring up the
On Jul 18, 12:33 pm, "Harald Schilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi Harald,
> Hello Sage folks, as promised in my last website posting [1], here a
> bit more how things evolved.
nice work and thanks for your continued efforts.
> First, since there is some tracking going on, and I have a bit mo
Robert --
I'm afraid that I did not take detailed notes of your talk at Dev Days
1.
Is there documentation that shows how one ought to now implement
coercion for brand new code?
Perhaps a good example that we can all look to for guidance?
-- Kurt
On Jul 17, 11:25 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PR
On Jul 18, 12:24 pm, Clement Pernet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Clement,
> I am looking into it.
Thanks. We are still not 100% certain that the probabilistic charpoly
mod p is at fault here, but it can't hurt to take a look.
> Applying the patch
> athttp://sage.math.washington.edu/home/pern
Hello Sage folks, as promised in my last website posting [1], here a
bit more how things evolved.
First, since there is some tracking going on, and I have a bit more
than two weeks to compare, I can make some trends and analysis.
The first thing is, that the visitors come and go very stable. Duri
Hi,
the following might be interesting for some people around here. As
time permits I will offer an optional spkg.
Cheers,
Michael
Original Message
Subject: [atlas-devel] ATLAS 3.9.0 & LAPACK
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:19:10 -0500
From: Clint Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-T
On Jul 18, 2008, at 8:05 AM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Jul 17, 11:23 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:31 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:11 AM, John H Palmieri
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
On Jul 17, 4:51 pm, Ca
On Jul 18, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Arnaud Bergeron wrote:
> 2008/7/17 Kurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2:39 pm, "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
I have a class which represents the set of words over an
alphabet (but
is not a Monoïd since it also contains infinite w
On Jul 17, 11:23 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:31 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:11 AM, John H Palmieri
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 17, 4:51 pm, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 17, 3:30
Following Ansrzej's report I tried the same thing. For me the test
always takes 2.0-2.1s but the 5th or 6th time I got the failure:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/modular/ssmod/ssmod.py
**
File "/home/jec/sage-3.0.6.alpha0/tmp/ssmod.py"
2008/7/17 Kurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Jul 16, 2:39 pm, "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I have a class which represents the set of words over an alphabet (but
>> > is not a Monoïd since it also contains infinite words) and another
>> > class which represents a word. These class
Michael_D_G a écrit :
> Thanks so much William!
>
>
Hello,
I have posted some questions about ldap identification in Sage (in the
notebook), and I started to look a bit more in details... But it seems
that you are much more advanced than me (I'm absolutely not a specialist
of ldap programi
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Michael_D_G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks so much William!
>
> No I am not talking about the worksheets but the notebook.
> What confused me was that a UserDatabase looked like
> the place were all the users were being stored. I saw user.py
> but that doesn
Thanks so much William!
No I am not talking about the worksheets but the notebook.
What confused me was that a UserDatabase looked like
the place were all the users were being stored. I saw user.py
but that doesn't have a container class. There is clearly some
redundancy between UserRecord and Us
Hello folks,
we finally have working mirrors again, but since we moved a lot of
files around most mirrors not sage.math are still catching up since
they all have to mirror 28GB. Be patient and everything should be back
to normal in a day or two. Apologies for breaking the mirrors, I hope
it won'
On Jul 18, 1:01 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi John,
> Following Ansrzej's report I tried the same thing. For me the test
> always takes 2.0-2.1s but the 5th or 6th time I got the failure:
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/modular/ssmod/ssmod.py
>
Some of you may be wondering how the new coercion model is coming
along. After a heroic effort by many people at Dev Days 1, and a
little followup work, we managed to merge the coercion branch into
3.0.3 and got all doctests to pass with the exception of /modular
and /schemes/generic. It h
23 matches
Mail list logo
