Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

On Monday, 10 July 2017 17:05:10 UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: > > On 10/07/2017 16:36, 'Bill Hart' via sage-devel wrote: > >> BTW, it would be good to have them in the post! > >> > > > > It already says in the post that for systems that didn't provide the > > required function, I used quotient w

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

Switching to Singular for working over ZZ seems like a good idea. I timed it over ZZ and QQ in Singular and don't notice much difference in the timings. I'm sure the following is obvious, but let me mention it just in case. In the blog post I explain that some systems do not explicitly provide

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

On 10/07/2017 16:36, 'Bill Hart' via sage-devel wrote: BTW, it would be good to have them in the post! It already says in the post that for systems that didn't provide the required function, I used quotient with remainder. I meant code snippets. -- You received this message because you are

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

On Monday, 10 July 2017 13:31:26 UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: > > On 10/07/2017 12:48, mmarco wrote: > > It is surprising the difference between singular and Sage, considering > that > > Sage mostly relies on Singular for multivariate polynomial arithmetic. > In > > the case of divisions, I susp

Re: [sage-devel] UnicodeDecodeError while compiling cython with %runfile

On 10/07/2017 15:27, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: I am starting to lose my patience with people posting bug reports and omitting the most important part, like the log file or traceback. Anyway, I'm guessing this might be https://github.com/ipython/ipython/pull/10692 looks like it If you would have

Re: [sage-devel] UnicodeDecodeError while compiling cython with %runfile

I am starting to lose my patience with people posting bug reports and omitting the most important part, like the log file or traceback. Anyway, I'm guessing this might be https://github.com/ipython/ipython/pull/10692 If you would have posted the traceback instead of "...", I could actually k

Re: [sage-devel] UnicodeDecodeError while compiling cython with %runfile

On 10 July 2017 at 14:14, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > I am stuck with compiling a single cython file that contains the one line > > from sage.libs.ntl.ntl_ZZX cimport ntl_ZZX > > If such line is saved into toto.pyx then from the console I got > > sage: %runf

[sage-devel] UnicodeDecodeError while compiling cython with %runfile

Dear all, I am stuck with compiling a single cython file that contains the one line from sage.libs.ntl.ntl_ZZX cimport ntl_ZZX If such line is saved into toto.pyx then from the console I got sage: %runfile toto.pyx Compiling ./toto.pyx... Traceback (most recent call last) ... UnicodeDecodeErro

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

Sorry, I meant (f*g).expand(). It's even slower, interesting. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to t

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:55:23 AM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: > > He was certainly not using the awfully slow symbolic ring > > sage: x,y,z,t,u = SR.var('x,y,z,t,u') > sage: f = (1 + x + y + 2*z^2 + 3*t^3 + 5*u^5)^6 > sage: g = (1 + u + t + 2*z^2 + 3*y^3 + 5*x^5)^6 > sage: %time h = (f*g).exp

Re: [sage-devel] What to do with the "Timed out" failures of patchbots?

+1 This seems the best workaround for now as it would take some time to fix the root cause of these timeouts. On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:57:19 AM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Kwankyu Lee > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Nowadays, it seems frequent that patchbots re

Re: [sage-devel] Category question: how to get base ring?

On 2017-06-30 17:01, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:39:50AM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: OK, but the question becomes: Suppose a parent R is in Algebras(something), is it safe to assume that R is an algebra over R.base_ring()? In other words, what is the semantic of "base_r

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

This is now #23395 El lunes, 10 de julio de 2017, 13:43:46 (UTC+2), mmarco escribió: > > If you used quo_rem, beware that Sage only uses Singular if the > coefficient ring is a field. So if you define your polynomials over QQ > instead of ZZ you will get

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

If you used quo_rem, beware that Sage only uses Singular if the coefficient ring is a field. So if you define your polynomials over QQ instead of ZZ you will get timings similar to those of Singular. In the case of ZZ, it will do so with some generic python implementation of division. I guess w

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

If you used quo_rem, beware that Sage only uses Singular if the coefficient ring is a field. So if you define your polynomials over QQ instead of ZZ you will get timings similar to those of Singular. In the case of ZZ, it will do so with some generic python implementation of division. I guess w

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

On 10/07/2017 12:48, mmarco wrote: It is surprising the difference between singular and Sage, considering that Sage mostly relies on Singular for multivariate polynomial arithmetic. In the case of divisions, I suspect that it has to do with the fact that Sage treats division of polynomials as an

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

It is surprising the difference between singular and Sage, considering that Sage mostly relies on Singular for multivariate polynomial arithmetic. In the case of divisions, I suspect that it has to do with the fact that Sage treats division of polynomials as an operation in the fraction field, s

[sage-devel] Re: Old-style packages

Hi Jeroen, On 2017-07-10, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > I don't think that it should be so strict. Of course, the optional > module should still be within the scope of Sage and be sufficiently > related to things that Sage does. That would indeed be the case. > Keep in mind that there are advantage

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

The reason that I required the quotient as well in the divisibility benchmark was that Magma does the n = 20 dense case in 0.15s otherwise, and I don't believe it is possible to do it that fast if you aren't doing it heuristically, as I explained in the blog post. Therefore, all the systems tim

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

7.6 On Monday, 10 July 2017 11:56:32 UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: > > On 10/07/2017 09:34, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:55:23 AM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: > >> > >> He was certainly not using the awfully slow symbolic ring > >> > > > > Then his slow timings for e.g. "Divi

Re: [sage-devel] What to do with the "Timed out" failures of patchbots?

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > Hi, > > Nowadays, it seems frequent that patchbots report "Timed out" failures. The > files "plot.py" and "test.py" are often to blame. These patchbot reports are > false in the sense that the ticket that is tested is not the cause of the > fail

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

On 10/07/2017 09:34, Ralf Stephan wrote: On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:55:23 AM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: He was certainly not using the awfully slow symbolic ring Then his slow timings for e.g. "Divisibility test with quotient (sparse)" needs a different explanation. Sage version? -- You

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Old-style packages

On 2017-07-08 13:37, Simon King wrote: Sure. The meataxe experience was the reason why I tried optional extension modules. I don't recall *who* said so, but I was told that optional extension modules in the Sage source tree should only be used for functionalty that exists in vanilla Sage and can

Re: [sage-devel] on reference manual pages for code which depends on optional packages

On 2017-07-08 21:45, mforets wrote: i think that it is convenient to show that too, but are there any objections? No objections, just technical reasons. There is no infrastructure in the Sage docbuilder to deal with optional modules. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

Because it is "divisibility test with quotient", not "divisibility test". It is equivalent to calling Magma's "IsDivisibleBy" with two return arguments. On Monday, 10 July 2017 09:34:39 UTC+2, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:55:23 AM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: >> >> He was ce

[sage-devel] Re: About the patchbot queue

Nice idea! I thought about the same, to set a patchbot up on some of our institutes idle servers, but did not succeed yet. I'll tackle this again, when I have a bit more spare time. Am Freitag, 7. Juli 2017 10:56:53 UTC+2 schrieb Eric Gourgoulhon: > > Thanks for your answer. > The author is not

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [ODK participants] Blog post on fast multivariate arithmetic

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:55:23 AM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: > > He was certainly not using the awfully slow symbolic ring > Then his slow timings for e.g. "Divisibility test with quotient (sparse)" needs a different explanation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to th