Harald Schilly schrieb:
On Apr 29, 12:29 pm, bb wrote:
2. The downlaod has a speed of about 13 KB/s, not a breakneck speed, one
might get it in about 20 hours. Is it possible to copy the iso to
another place with large pipes?
Yes, I can upload it to Sage's mirror network - is this a l
On Apr 29, 10:58 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:30 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> > (RJF)Again, I see no definition of what you mean by accuracy in the result
> > of polynomial multiplication.The easiest position to take is that of MPFR--
> considering the inputs as exact rationals, how
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 at 05:43PM -0700, kcrisman wrote:
> > There should be a better way to tell R to build with PNG support. It
> > seems like it shouldn't need to link in X libraries just to spit out a
> > PNG file.
>
> I agree, but I think that's just how they do it (or you can use Cairo
> or Quar
I've been working on a new implementation of an algorithm to compute
the genus of graphs. Throughout the process, I've been bound by the
chains of backwards compatibility. As I've attempted to finish off
the patch, I've found some deeply unsettling details in the current
implementation. I'd like
Moved from
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-release/browse_thread/thread/e7d692cb7859162e
on sage-release:
On Apr 29, 6:32 pm, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 at 08:46AM -0700, kcrisman wrote:
> > It would be interesting to see what happens in your make log for R.
> > Do you have /usr/
Indeed, if one doubles the precision before calling the FHT
multiplication routine (which will not affect the time terribly much)
then one gets stability about the same as classical multiplication.
Tomorrow I'll look at the multiplication algorithms in MPFRCX and see
how their stability behaves.
If the coefficients are allowed to vary in sign and vary wildly in the
number of bits, then nothing will save you. Here are the figures for
classical multiplication:
len = 1, min = 0, av = 18, max = 79, prec = 106
len = 2, min = 0, av = 23, max = 101, prec = 106
len = 3, min = 0, av = 19, max = 98
Here are the figures for signed coefficients. First for classical
multiplication:
len = 1, min = 0, av = 0, max = 0, prec = 106
len = 2, min = 0, av = 0, max = 3, prec = 106
len = 3, min = 0, av = 0, max = 2, prec = 106
len = 4, min = 0, av = 0, max = 1, prec = 106
len = 6, min = 0, av = 0, max =
I wrote a little program to compute the "exact" product of two
polynomials with uniformly random unsigned coefficients < 2^prec for
some precision prec. I then compute the number of bits that are
correct in each coefficient and subtract from the precision. That
gives a measure of how many bits are
Hi Johan,
2010/4/30 Johan Grönqvist :
> I tried following the guides, but it is my first attempt at using both
> mercurial and trac, so I may well have missed something.
I have looked over the patch. It is very good. I'm reviewing it now to
determine what more to add to your patch so as to pre
2010-04-27 11:37, Minh Nguyen skrev:
Would you upload a patch
to the trac server to improve that documentation? If so, please CC me
on the relevant ticket and I'd be more than happy to review your
patch.
I have opened ticket 8825 and attached a patch. It is a very small
change, and by no means
Hi folks,
Sage 4.4.1.alpha2 contains two PolyBoRi spkg's:
* polybori-0.6.3-20091028.spkg
* polybori-0.6.4.spkg
I think polybori-0.6.4.spkg is the newer one, so I deleted the other
one from SAGE_ROOT/spkg/standard/. Here's a diff between the
spkg-install of polybori-0.6.3-20091028.spkg and polybo
> This is a known bug, and almost fixed:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4000
oh, I see. Can't wait until it's part of sage !
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups
Should this happen? :
sage: f._mul_fateman(f)
ERROR: An unexpected error occurred while tokenizing input
The following traceback may be corrupted or invalid
The error message is: ('EOF in multi-line statement', (22841, 0))
ERROR: An unexpected error occurred while tokenizing input
The following t
Being a little more precise about it. Here are the Sage timings
performed on the same machine as I did the FLINT timings:
sage: f=(x+1)^1000
sage: timeit("f*f")
5 loops, best of 3: 87.5 ms per loop
sage: timeit("f._mul_karatsuba(f)")
5 loops, best of 3: 370 ms per loop
flint2 (with FHT): 5.5 ms
Hi folks,
The message below might be of interest to the Sage community.
--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Fateman
Date: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:40 AM
Subject: [Maxima] [Fwd: Scientific Software Innovation Institutes
(S2I2)] / possibly of interest r
On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:30 AM, rjf wrote:
Again, I see no definition of what you mean by accuracy in the result
of polynomial multiplication.
If you look at the actual algebraic formula for any given coefficient
in the result, you see it is
the sum of products of coefficients from the inputs, and
On Apr 29, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Pierre wrote:
Dear all,
Not sure if this is for sage-devel or sage-support. Here's a
'benchmark' which I find stunning:
sage: A= MatrixSpace(QQ['t'], 8).random_element()
sage: %time B= A*A
CPU times: user 0.04 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.04 s
Wall time: 0.04 s
sage:
I haven't looked at the underlying code, but my impression is that
this sort of thing is unavoidable to some extent.
MatrixSpace(QQ['t'], 8).random_element() has the option of using
relatively well optimised underlying code for elements of QQ['t'].
MatrixSpace(QQ['t'].fraction_field(), 8).random_
On Apr 29, 4:30 pm, rjf wrote:
> Again, I see no definition of what you mean by accuracy in the result
> of polynomial multiplication.
I'm pretty naive and unknowledgeable about such things, but I don't
see why you need a definition. My reading of the original context of
the thread is that the
Dear all,
Not sure if this is for sage-devel or sage-support. Here's a
'benchmark' which I find stunning:
sage: A= MatrixSpace(QQ['t'], 8).random_element()
sage: %time B= A*A
CPU times: user 0.04 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.04 s
Wall time: 0.04 s
sage: C= MatrixSpace(QQ['t'].fraction_field(), 8).ra
I made the speedup I mentioned to the Fast Hartley Transform code in
flint2.
Again I pick on the benchmarks Robert gave:
> sage: f = (x+1)^1000
> sage: timeit("f*f")
> 5 loops, best of 3: 142 ms per loop
> sage: timeit("f._mul_karatsuba(f)")
> 5 loops, best of 3: 655 ms per loop
That time is dow
On 04/29/2010 07:57 AM, dagss wrote:
Hello:
> Tracking a weird bug I've discovered the following:
> For a symbolic variable x and a numpy.float64 y, the code 'x to a Symbolic expression, while 'y I'm afraid I'm stacked, as it is the responsability of the method
> numpy.float64.__
Again, I see no definition of what you mean by accuracy in the result
of polynomial multiplication.
If you look at the actual algebraic formula for any given coefficient
in the result, you see it is
the sum of products of coefficients from the inputs, and the
possibility of cancellation depends on
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:33:04 +
Willem Jan Palenstijn wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:20:25AM +, Willem Jan Palenstijn wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 07:01:10PM +1000, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Sage 4.4.1.alpha2 builds OK on sage.math. I wasn't able to run
> >
On Apr 28, 10:15 pm, Pablo Angulo wrote:
> Hello:
> Tracking a weird bug I've discovered the following:
> For a symbolic variable x and a numpy.float64 y, the code 'x to a Symbolic expression, while 'y I'm afraid I'm stacked, as it is the responsability of the method
> numpy.float64.__lt__
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:20:25AM +, Willem Jan Palenstijn wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 07:01:10PM +1000, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Sage 4.4.1.alpha2 builds OK on sage.math. I wasn't able to run
> > doctests on the Sage library. When trying to wrap up a binary for
> > sage.
On Apr 29, 11:20 am, Willem Jan Palenstijn wrote:
> Unfortunately it only actually crashes on exit on sage.math about once in
> 10-15
> times.
>
> -Willem Jan
I get exactly the same behaviour on our 64-bit Ubuntu box: it fails
randomly every now and again, with tracebacks looking very similar
On Apr 29, 12:29 pm, bb wrote:
> 2. The downlaod has a speed of about 13 KB/s, not a breakneck speed, one
> might get it in about 20 hours. Is it possible to copy the iso to
> another place with large pipes?
Yes, I can upload it to Sage's mirror network - is this a live CD?
H
--
To post to thi
To bb;
> 1. Is there anywhere a md5 available?
> 2. The downlaod has a speed of about 13 KB/s, not a breakneck speed, one
> might get it in about 20 hours. Is it possible to copy the iso to
> another place with large pipes?
>
1. Yes, you can also find md5 file in the same directory.
2. At this ti
cch schrieb:
Hi all,
Sage-4.4 cdrom can be download from:
http://diffusion.cgu.edu.tw/ftp/sage-4.4.iso
It bases on slax-6.2 version, Slakware Linux, and includes TeXmacs
too.
cch
1. Is there anywhere a md5 available?
2. The downlaod has a speed of about 13 KB/s, not a breakneck speed, o
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 07:01:10PM +1000, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Sage 4.4.1.alpha2 builds OK on sage.math. I wasn't able to run
> doctests on the Sage library. When trying to wrap up a binary for
> sage.math, the reason became apparent:
>
> [mv...@sage sage-4.4.1.alpha2]$ ./sage -bdis
Hi folks,
Sage 4.4.1.alpha2 builds OK on sage.math. I wasn't able to run
doctests on the Sage library. When trying to wrap up a binary for
sage.math, the reason became apparent:
[mv...@sage sage-4.4.1.alpha2]$ ./sage -bdist
4.4.1.alpha2-sage.math.washington.edu
Sage works!
*** glibc detected ***
Hi folks,
Sage 4.4.1.alpha2 has a directory that is not under revision control:
[mv...@sage sage-main]$ pwd
/dev/shm/mvngu/sandbox/sage-4.4.1.alpha2/devel/sage-main
[mv...@sage sage-main]$ hg status
? doc/en/thematic_tutorials/group_theory.rst
The directory is
SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage-main/doc/en/t
34 matches
Mail list logo
