gt;
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Gonzalo Tornaria
> Date: Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [sage-devel] Re: Bug: Elliptic Curve Point Counting
> To: sage-devel@googlegroups.com
> Cc: Nick Alexander
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:13 A
OK, so now now we need a plan of how to proceed, and how to divide up
the work between several people. And maybe a separate group
(sage-pari?), or is that not necessary?
John
On 11 April 2010 13:49, Alex Ghitza wrote:
>
> Oops, this somehow passed completely under my radar...
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar
Oops, this somehow passed completely under my radar...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:32:22 +0100, John Cremona wrote:
> I am also willing to help upgrade to pari 2.4. Maybe Alex Ghitza
> would also join in -- he and I worked well together fixing a lot of
> pari precision issues in 2008.
I'd be happy
It is correct that eclib only uses pari in a very small way (for
factoring integers).
I am also willing to help upgrade to pari 2.4. Maybe Alex Ghitza
would also join in -- he and I worked well together fixing a lot of
pari precision issues in 2008.
Perhaps this should be coordinated somehow (sa
* Whoever tried last (Nick?), can they summarize some of the issues
they encountered.
I sent this a few days ago but it got confused, so I'm sending it again:
The thing that I remember was that large pieces of the C-interface
have changed. Names changed, arguments changed, pieces removed.
> > -eclib,
>
> It barely uses Sage; it's just used a tiny bit for factoring, I think.
>
I meant that eclib uses and links against pari.
> > -genus2reduction (I guess sage is technically upstream there,
>
> I'm upstream for that; I doubt the modifications will be difficult.
>
same here.
> >
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:00 AM, François Bissey
wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> > We should definitely move to PARI 2.4. We haven't only because it is
>> > indeed a monumental task. Perhaps I'll do the move, since I wrote
>> > most of the Sage wrapper of PARI
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Stein wrote:
> > We should definitely move to PARI 2.4. We haven't only because it is
> > indeed a monumental task. Perhaps I'll do the move, since I wrote
> > most of the Sage wrapper of PARI anyways, and surely porting is much
> > less work than writi
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:13 AM, William Stein wrote:
> We should definitely move to PARI 2.4. We haven't only because it is
> indeed a monumental task. Perhaps I'll do the move, since I wrote
> most of the Sage wrapper of PARI anyways, and surely porting is much
> less work than writing the who
gt; De: Hamish Ivey-Law
> Para: sage-devel
> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 24 de Março de 2010 8:45:58
> Assunto: [sage-devel] Re: Bug: Elliptic Curve Point Counting
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Mar 23, 4:39 pm, Robert Campbell wrote:
>> There is a bug somewhere in the point counti
_
De: Hamish Ivey-Law
Para: sage-devel
Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 24 de Março de 2010 8:45:58
Assunto: [sage-devel] Re: Bug: Elliptic Curve Point Counting
Hi Robert,
On Mar 23, 4:39 pm, Robert Campbell wrote:
> There is a bug somewhere in the point counting code for elliptic
> curv
Hi Robert,
On Mar 23, 4:39 pm, Robert Campbell wrote:
> There is a bug somewhere in the point counting code for elliptic
> curves. Checked both on Linux/4.2.x and OSX-PowerPC/4.2.1. The bug
> appears to be either in the PARI ellsea routine or in the SAGE
> interface to it. With some more time
12 matches
Mail list logo
