> I have applied the patch and rebuild LinBox and started running the
> test 500 times to see. Can you guess if/how much this patch does
> affect performance for charpoly mod p?
>
For the dimensions you are considering (and up to a thousand) I don't
expect any performance loss.
But the probabili
On Jul 18, 3:59 pm, Clement Pernet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have applied the patch and rebuild LinBox and started running the
> > test 500 times to see. Can you guess if/how much this patch does
> > affect performance for charpoly mod p?
>
> For the dimensions you are considering (and up
I am looking into it.
Applying the patch at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/pernet/Patches/charpoly_LUK.patch
will disable the current probablistic charpoly algorithm.
This could help diagnose the origin of the bug.
Cheers
Clement
mabshoff a écrit :
>
>
> On Jul 17, 10:34 pm, mabshoff
On Jul 18, 12:24 pm, Clement Pernet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Clement,
> I am looking into it.
Thanks. We are still not 100% certain that the probabilistic charpoly
mod p is at fault here, but it can't hurt to take a look.
> Applying the patch
> athttp://sage.math.washington.edu/home/pern
On Jul 17, 10:34 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, here is what I found out last night:
>
> * 3.0.3 runs the test 200 times without failing it once
> * 3.0.4 with the new FLINT 1.0.13 fails 8 ought of 500 tests.
>
> So we are given a couple possibilities:
>
> * There is an algorit
Ok, here is what I found out last night:
* 3.0.3 runs the test 200 times without failing it once
* 3.0.4 with the new FLINT 1.0.13 fails 8 ought of 500 tests.
So we are given a couple possibilities:
* There is an algorithmic issue in ssmod somewhere or some
algorithmic issue got exposed some
On Jul 16, 6:49 pm, "Andrzej Giniewicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Craig Citro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is bad, in the sense that it's wrong. What machine was this
> > happening on?
>
> in my case it's AMD Athlon from "Barton age", ther
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Craig Citro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is bad, in the sense that it's wrong. What machine was this
> happening on?
in my case it's AMD Athlon from "Barton age", there's cpuinfo:
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 6
This is bad, in the sense that it's wrong. What machine was this
happening on? Did you try running this same test 100 or so times with
3.0.3 (before the new FLINT)?
It might be worth upgrading FLINT anyway -- someone else could be
hitting the same corner case, maybe in a non-doctest fashion ...
