Hi folks,
This is the final alpha release of Sage 4.3.3. The next release would
be an rc0. The development version of Sage is now in feature freeze.
Source:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-4.3.3.alpha1/sage-4.3.3.alpha1.tar
Binary for sage.math:
http://sage.math.washington.ed
Some other packages do use assembly support, e.g. FLINT, zn_poly,
possibly M4RI, probably numerous others.
And of course, in all that C code, the compiler is bound to apply
optimisations specific to the build architecture in at least a handful
of cases.
The solution is of course to use generic C
On Feb 18, 6:05 pm, mhampton wrote:
> I'm glad that CHomP is going in and that there is work being done on
> it. Even though it doesn't need a vote, feel free to add me as a
> reviewer to any related tickets. I've meant to look in to adding it
> and other things related to dynamical systems for
I'm glad that CHomP is going in and that there is work being done on
it. Even though it doesn't need a vote, feel free to add me as a
reviewer to any related tickets. I've meant to look in to adding it
and other things related to dynamical systems for a long time and
haven't had the time (e.g. Py
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:56 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> CHomP is a free (GPL version 2) software package for computing
> homology (CHomP stands for Computation Homology Project.) See
> chomp.rutgers.edu for some more information. I've prepared an
> experimental spkg for it:
>
> http://sage.mat
CHomP is a free (GPL version 2) software package for computing
homology (CHomP stands for Computation Homology Project.) See
chomp.rutgers.edu for some more information. I've prepared an
experimental spkg for it:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/palmieri/SPKG/chomp-20100213.spkg
If you succ
William Stein wrote:
Hi,
I'm top posting, since I'm not responding to any particular remark on
this thread. Sage *already* checks CPU flags on startup (see the
SAGE_ROOT/local/lib/sage-flags.txt file and references to it in
local/bin/sage-*). There is already a SAGE_FAT_BINARY flag for
buildi
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 07:19:36AM +1100, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> Cool pictures indeed. Can you also post the Sage code for generating
> them?
I definitely will, when that won't require anymore a collection of,
hmm, non production grade code, in particular to define and work with
those monoids. Oh,
Forwarding to sage-devel. Ethan made petsc working with FEMhub (so it
should work in Sage too).
Ondrej
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ondrej Certik
Date: Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [femhub] Re: adjusting versions and using/abusing FEMHUB
To: fem...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:44:38 +0100, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> I just put on http://wiki.sagemath.org/combinat/CoolPictures a few
> pictures produced using this patch.
Hi Nicolas,
Cool pictures indeed. Can you also post the Sage code for generating
them?
Best,
Alex
--
Alex Ghitza -- Lec
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Hello everybody
>
> I have been spending hours on the same Cython problem, which I hope
> you can solve instantly :-)
>
> I have a Cython file, which happens to be sage/numerical/mip_coin.pyx
> which defines the following function :
>
>
Hi,
I'm top posting, since I'm not responding to any particular remark on
this thread. Sage *already* checks CPU flags on startup (see the
SAGE_ROOT/local/lib/sage-flags.txt file and references to it in
local/bin/sage-*). There is already a SAGE_FAT_BINARY flag for
building Sage with a FAT mpir
Maybe try
cimport sage.numerical.mip_coin
from sage.numerical.mip_coin cimport osi_solve
David
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Hello everybody
>
> I have been spending hours on the same Cython problem, which I hope
> you can solve instantly :-)
>
> I have a Cython fi
On 18 Feb, 13:05, Bill Hart wrote:
> There are some problems with this. Compiling MPIR using generic C
> code, for example, will yield a *massive* slowdown of *everything*.
It would in general not be necessary to use C, but assembly code for a
low-end processor such as an early Pentium should
You might try this to do your benchmark:
import numpy
matrix(numpy.random.normal(size=(1000,1000)))
(or another numpy.random depending on the distribution you want)
of course, I don't know if there is a ticket opened (no time to check
now) but if not you might open one.
--
To post to this grou
On Feb 18, 4:16 pm, Ross Kyprianou wrote:
> Apologies for asking Harold but how big was "s"?
>
1000, and yes, they are not the same - but Sage is too slow anyways.
It's not great if an SVD benchmark is nearly dominated by
random_matrix ;)
H
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel
Oops (read the doco (for random_matrix) Ross!)
Apologies for the silly mistake
Matlab's rand() samples from the uniform distribution (I believe) and
randn() from the normal distribution. That has a small bearing when we
want to compare. But there should still be a problem (unless I made
another mi
from Matlab help:
r = randn(m,n) returns an m-by-n matrix containing pseudorandom values
drawn from the standard normal distribution
a somewhat better test would be:
Matlab: rand(1000,'double')
vs
Sage: random_matrix(RDF,1000)
(note: for matlab values are in [0,1) but in [-1,1) with Sage)
Sag
On Thursday 18 February 2010, Ross Kyprianou wrote:
> Harald
>
> There seems to be definitely a problem
>
> Just tried it on sage.math
>
> sage: %time random_matrix(RDF, 1)
> took over 2mins ()
this is a 1 x 1 matrix
> tic; m = randn(100,100); toc
> took 0.0003 secs!
and this
Javier,
In fact,
http://brauer.maths.qmul.ac.uk/Atlas/v3/clas/U34/
provides you all almost you need.
If you take the sum of all the representations given there, it's
exactly
1_G+"the irreducibles", so each irreducible comes with multiplicity 1.
So you can just take the (GAP) data given there, and
Harald
There seems to be definitely a problem
Just tried it on sage.math
sage: %time random_matrix(RDF, 1)
took over 2mins ()
tic; m = randn(100,100); toc
took 0.0003 secs!
On Feb 19, 12:05 am, Harald Schilly wrote:
> Hi, I did some benchmarks and during that i noticed that it takes
>
Apologies for asking Harold but how big was "s"?
On Feb 19, 12:05 am, Harald Schilly wrote:
> Hi, I did some benchmarks and during that i noticed that it takes
> quite long to create a random_matrix. Is there something obvious I'm
> missing or is there a better way to do this? Ticket?
>
> Benchma
Hi!
The videos from the recent conference on libre software for
mathematics in Paris is now online. This includes my talk which of
course mentions Sage and Sage-Combinat.
At this occasion, I highly recommend the talk by Pierre Raybaut (CEA,
author of pythonxy and Spyder), which presents a
Hi, I did some benchmarks and during that i noticed that it takes
quite long to create a random_matrix. Is there something obvious I'm
missing or is there a better way to do this? Ticket?
Benchmark Matlab 2009a vs. Sage 4.3.2:
tic; m = randn(s,s); toc
Elapsed time is 0.060981 seconds.
sage: %tim
On Feb 18, 2:09 am, javier wrote:
> Hi Dima,
>
> On Feb 18, 6:26 am, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> > I am curious to know, how you are doing this. IMHO for this you need
> > to know
> > each irreducible representation explicitly --- but then you can just
> > stack up the right
> > number of copies
Hello everybody
I have been spending hours on the same Cython problem, which I hope
you can solve instantly :-)
I have a Cython file, which happens to be sage/numerical/mip_coin.pyx
which defines the following function :
cdef float osi_solve(self,c_OsiSolverInterface * si,bool log,bool
obje
There are some problems with this. Compiling MPIR using generic C
code, for example, will yield a *massive* slowdown of *everything*.
Linbox and ATLAS are also somewhat problematic in this regard.
The solution is to use fat binaries for MPIR on x86 and x86_64 and a
minimum architecture for each o
Dear Sage / Sage-Combinat devs,
I just put on http://wiki.sagemath.org/combinat/CoolPictures a few
pictures produced using this patch. Here is Tom Denton's reaction when
he looked at the n=5 one:
"First they tell us we will never need more than 640k of RAM, then
they tell us our documents
Instead of trying to detect the CPU and then possibly displaying an
error message, the binary packages should be built with the same
compiler flags as the binary distribution. This will ensure that every
computer that runs a target linux distribution will also be able to
run the sage binary distri
I have some failed doctests on Centos
[ma...@carya ~]$ uname -a
Linux carya 2.6.9-67.0.20.ELsmp #1 SMP Thu Jun 26 08:14:55 EDT 2008
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
sage -t "local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sagenb-0.7.5-py2.6.egg/
sagenb/misc/sphinxify.py"
[4.4 s]
sage -t "local/lib/py
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:16:13 -0800 (PST)
Håkan Granath wrote:
> A minor inconvenience is the extra set of parentheses that appear
> when typesetting QQ elements as arguments of functions, e.g.
>
> --
> | Sage Version 4.3.2,
On 17 February 2010 14:57, javier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to use sage to compute the Artin-Wedderburn decomposition
> of a group algebra. Since I need exact expressions I am working over
> QQbar rather than over CC. When trying to compute the idempotents I
> get an error resulting from an
Hi Dima,
On Feb 18, 6:26 am, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> I am curious to know, how you are doing this. IMHO for this you need
> to know
> each irreducible representation explicitly --- but then you can just
> stack up the right
> number of copies of each irreducible.
>
> Or you rather mean a weaker d
33 matches
Mail list logo
