Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Saturday, 15 December 2018 22:22:09 UTC+1, parisse wrote: > > > > Le samedi 15 décembre 2018 20:57:02 UTC+1, Bill Hart a écrit : >> >> >> >> And even if giac did all that, it is one of many projects doing >> multivariate polynomial arithmetic in Europe. There's also Trip, Piranha, >> Factory

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le samedi 15 décembre 2018 20:57:02 UTC+1, Bill Hart a écrit : > > > > And even if giac did all that, it is one of many projects doing > multivariate polynomial arithmetic in Europe. There's also Trip, Piranha, > Factory, Pari/GP, Gap. I really don't think it is a valid argument that > just be

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Saturday, 15 December 2018 18:19:53 UTC+1, parisse wrote: > > Bill, my feeling is that part of ODK money was used to improve > multivariate polynomial arithmetic implementations precisely in a domain > where Giac behaves well (and maybe I should emphasize that unlike almost > all other CAS,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Bill, my feeling is that part of ODK money was used to improve multivariate polynomial arithmetic implementations precisely in a domain where Giac behaves well (and maybe I should emphasize that unlike almost all other CAS, Giac is a library, i.e. is interoperable with any software that can int

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Saturday, 15 December 2018 17:10:10 UTC+1, Bill Hart wrote: > > > > On Sunday, 9 December 2018 11:22:48 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > I cannot comment on why certain implementations did not use Giac code, >> I am not involved in this work. >> > > I am involved in that, > I should pr

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Sunday, 9 December 2018 11:22:48 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: I cannot comment on why certain implementations did not use Giac code, > I am not involved in this work. > I am involved in that, but I believe there may be some misconceptions here. The implementations we are doing for ODK a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Giac source code has been updated, with the following (much faster) timings for gbasis computation on Q server 32 processors Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v3 @ 2.60GHz, 64G of RAM 16 threads [CPU time, real time], 4 threads [CPU, real], 1 thread cyclic8 : [43.37,11.25], [31.82,12.15], 26.12 (48 p

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Got cyclic9 on Q with 16 threads in 45 minutes real time (about 6h and 20 minutes CPU time). I made a few changes to the way parallelization is called, and got some > progress. Now cyclic9 on Q takes a little more than 4h with 1 thread, 1h41 > real time/4h40 CPU with 6 threads (probably not far

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Giac on Geogebra SVN The giac tarball is self-contained for compiling on gnu systems. The stable version corresponding to the latest debian packages is giac_stable.tgz

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 06:07, parisse wrote: > > > Le dimanche 9 décembre 2018 20:44:30 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : >> >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 1:42 PM parisse >> wrote: >> > >> > Efficient code does not depend on how you handle it (git, svn or >> tarballs or whatever). >> >> Efficiency of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le dimanche 9 décembre 2018 20:44:30 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 1:42 PM parisse > wrote: > > > > Efficient code does not depend on how you handle it (git, svn or > tarballs or whatever). > > Efficiency of handling code does depend upon this; fixing a trivial

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 1:42 PM parisse wrote: > > Efficient code does not depend on how you handle it (git, svn or tarballs or > whatever). Efficiency of handling code does depend upon this; fixing a trivial C++ issue in Giac takes 10 times longer (and takes 10 times more time and effort from th

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Efficient code does not depend on how you handle it (git, svn or tarballs or whatever). And I don't think different practices is the real reason why Giac was/is mostly ignored here. After having done a few tests, I think I know why my code on Q is slower with more threads (if the number of thre

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:05 AM parisse wrote: > > > > Le samedi 8 décembre 2018 23:44:32 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 5:03 PM parisse wrote: >> >> > and even if I was, I don't want to depend from google or any company for >> > something like that (the risk of IP

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le samedi 8 décembre 2018 23:44:32 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 5:03 PM parisse > wrote: > > > and even if I was, I don't want to depend from google or any company > for something like that (the risk of IP problems is much too high > > IP problems while working

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 5:03 PM parisse wrote: > Le vendredi 7 décembre 2018 12:15:56 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : >> >> you can certainly get free cloud resources from Google, to spin out >> Linux (and not only) VMs with many cores, they have a faculty >> programme like this. >> I've been using

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le vendredi 7 décembre 2018 12:15:56 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : > > you can certainly get free cloud resources from Google, to spin out > Linux (and not only) VMs with many cores, they have a faculty > programme like this. > I've been using it since Sept. > https://cloud.google.com/edu/

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:10 AM parisse wrote: > > > > Le vendredi 7 décembre 2018 07:53:18 UTC+1, Markus Wageringel a écrit : >> >> >> While there will be some overhead due to the conversion from and to Sage, it >> is the same in both cases. In fact, I observe similar times with the native >> Gi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le mardi 27 novembre 2018 12:00:16 UTC+1, Simon King a écrit : > > Hi Bernard, > > On 2018-11-27, parisse > wrote: > > I meant a more efficient elimination order like double revlex. > > Actually I've never heard of that. The only reference I could find with > duckduckgo was the phrase > "F

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Hi Bernard, On 2018-11-27, parisse wrote: > I meant a more efficient elimination order like double revlex. Actually I've never heard of that. The only reference I could find with duckduckgo was the phrase "Fast Gröbner basis f4 algorithm (revlex order and double revlex for elimination), fast

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

I meant a more efficient elimination order like double revlex. Le lundi 26 novembre 2018 22:04:56 UTC+1, Simon King a écrit : > > Hi! > > > What is your definition of "elimination order"? If I understand > correctly, lex *is* an elimination order. > > Best regards, > Simon > > -- You receiv

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Hi! On 2018-11-26, parisse wrote: > not as complete: a quick look indicates that monomial ordering supported > are revlex and lex (no elimination, this is probably not hard to add), and > coefficients must belong to Z/pZ (support for Q would require more work...) What is your definition of "el

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 at 19:25, john_perry_usm wrote: > I walk into this discussion with some hesitancy, but Christian Eder has > developed a rather efficient F4 algorithm. [1] I know it works and is quite > fast, though I haven't compared it to the implementations mentioned above. > Unfortunately,