Re: [sage-devel] Re: Smith Normal Form over ZZ seriously slow

Indeed, this is a terribly naive code to permute the entries... assuming that the following is fast U,V,D = m.__pari__().matsnf(1).sage() permuting the entries should be done - in place - not in Python I would also suggest to provide access to the alternative implementation with flint void fm

[sage-devel] Re: OS X build failure: "Error installing package gfortran-7.2.0"

I get the same error with MAcOS Mojave and Xcode 10.0. The release notes for Xcode 10 state that /usr/include is being relocated to /Library/Developer//CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX.sdk/usr/include/. See the Xcode 10 release notes: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode_release_notes/

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Smith Normal Form over ZZ seriously slow

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:29 PM Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > > So the bulk of the time is spent converting the Pari object back into a Sage > object; mainly, this line: > > U = self.matrix_space(ncols = self._nrows)([v[0][i,j] for i in > xrange(self._nrows-1,-1,-1) for j in xrange(self._nrows)]) >

[sage-devel] Re: Remove sagenb documentation from the reference manual?

+1 to the proposal on #25382. Best, Travis On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 3:27:59 PM UTC+10, John H Palmieri wrote: > > At https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25382 >

[sage-devel] Re: Smith Normal Form over ZZ seriously slow

So the bulk of the time is spent converting the Pari object back into a Sage object; mainly, this line: U = self.matrix_space(ncols = self._nrows)([v[0][i,j] for i in xrange(self. _nrows-1,-1,-1) for j in xrange(self._nrows)]) which has 1000x1000 calls to extra the data and then has to be recon

[sage-devel] Re: Remove sagenb documentation from the reference manual?

+1 to unconditional removal. Really its just sending confusing messages to users looking for help. If you are new to Sage in 2018 you should never start sagenb. On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 7:27:59 AM UTC+2, John H Palmieri wrote: > > At https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25382, it is being

[sage-devel] Smith Normal Form over ZZ seriously slow

The method smith_form() for matrices over ZZ uses pari's matsnf() but is vastly slower. Compare these: sage: M=MatrixSpace(ZZ,1000,5).random_element() sage: %timeit S=M.smith_form(transformation=True) 1 loop, best of 3: 2.57 s per loop sage: pM=pari(M) sage: %timeit S=pM.matsnf(1) 10 loops, best

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Remove sagenb documentation from the reference manual?

Hi, I wrote much of sagenb and am why sagenb is currently not optional. I'm fine with removing it from sage and/or making it optional. William On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:43 AM Timo Kaufmann wrote: > > I'm also in favor. Besides being more complicated, I think doing something > different here fo

[sage-devel] Re: Remove sagenb documentation from the reference manual?

I'm also in favor. Besides being more complicated, I think doing something different here for python2 and python3 would be a bad idea. Am Mittwoch, 10. Oktober 2018 07:27:59 UTC+2 schrieb John H Palmieri: > > At https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25382, it is being proposed to remove > the documen

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Remove sagenb documentation from the reference manual?

Anyhow, I am for removal these docs from Sage proper, (and making sagenb optional) On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 9:09 AM Frédéric Chapoton wrote: > > This is the alternative : what would need to be done to fix the same problem > in another way. > > Le mercredi 10 octobre 2018 10:08:00 UTC+2, Dima Pasec

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Remove sagenb documentation from the reference manual?

This is the alternative : what would need to be done to fix the same problem in another way. Le mercredi 10 octobre 2018 10:08:00 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : > > > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, 08:16 Frédéric Chapoton, > wrote: > >> I agree with and support strongly this proposal of removal of sage

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Remove sagenb documentation from the reference manual?

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, 08:16 Frédéric Chapoton, wrote: > I agree with and support strongly this proposal of removal of sagenb doc, > which is a step towards having "make" (and not only "make build") being > working with python3. > > The alternative would require a *lot of work* on sagenb itself : >

[sage-devel] Re: Remove sagenb documentation from the reference manual?

I agree with and support strongly this proposal of removal of sagenb doc, which is a step towards having "make" (and not only "make build") being working with python3. The alternative would require a *lot of work* on sagenb itself : * merge the deprecation pull request there * release a new sag