Feeding the factors to Sage's factor command to check they are prime
is precisely what proof=true is all about. Testing primality in a
proven way, for numbers bigger than 10^16 is still very slow as there
is no really good algorithm known for it. I have some code written by
a student of mine (Pete
On Apr 9, 2:11 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2:03 pm, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> The primality test for pari is known to be lead to false results up to
> 10^14 or so (FLINT's is up to 10^16 IIRC what Bill told me a couple
> days ago).
Opps, I don't know what I was thinking, but the above make
On Apr 9, 2:03 pm, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2009-Apr-07 21:49:12 -0700, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Bill Hart
> >wrote:
> >> The reason it runs slow is a.factor() is bizarrely slow in Sage. It's
> >> like a factor of 50 times slower than Pari.
>
> >There are
On 2009-Apr-07 21:49:12 -0700, William Stein wrote:
>
>On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>> The reason it runs slow is a.factor() is bizarrely slow in Sage. It's
>> like a factor of 50 times slower than Pari.
>
>There are some differences:
> (1) pari's factor is *not* provably c
I mean half the memory that Sage uses, not half the memory of the
machine.
Bill.
On 8 Apr, 09:21, Bill Hart wrote:
> Yeah, the divisors function otherwise kicks proverbial:
>
> Here in Sage (excuse my rubbish python):
>
> def random(n):
> a = ZZ.random_element(n)
> return a
>
> def z_di
Yeah, the divisors function otherwise kicks proverbial:
Here in Sage (excuse my rubbish python):
def random(n):
a = ZZ.random_element(n)
return a
def z_divisors_test(m):
for j in range(0, m) :
n = random(10)
z = 1
c = 1
for i in range(0, n):
On Apr 7, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> William didn't mention the context of this, which is that for small
> integers most of the time taken by the divisors method in ZZ is taken
> up with factoring. It seems much more likely people will use small
> numbers as inputs to this, so this i
William didn't mention the context of this, which is that for small
integers most of the time taken by the divisors method in ZZ is taken
up with factoring. It seems much more likely people will use small
numbers as inputs to this, so this is a shame, given the amount of
work that (I hear) went in
Proof won't make a difference on the numbers I'm using, which are less
than 1,000,000. Pari does the same thing for proving primality below
about 10^13 or something like that, whether proved or not (the
pseudoprimality test it uses is known to have no counterexample). By
the way, the FLINT functio
On Apr 7, 2009, at 9:49 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Bill Hart
> wrote:
>> The reason it runs slow is a.factor() is bizarrely slow in Sage. It's
>> like a factor of 50 times slower than Pari.
>
> There are some differences:
>(1) pari's factor is *not* prova
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> The reason it runs slow is a.factor() is bizarrely slow in Sage. It's
> like a factor of 50 times slower than Pari.
There are some differences:
(1) pari's factor is *not* provably correct, but Sage's is. [That
said, this will make no differe
11 matches
Mail list logo
