Hi,
I have some questions about arithmetic speed. I'm comparing my pyrexified
version of the number field with patch at:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jbmohler/patches/number_field_element_2007_03_26.patch
As we might expect, after hammering at the integers for quite a long time,
magma
> On 3/27/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P.S.: Speed comparisons (all on sage.math). I've included the basic integer
In all your timings below that involve a constant (e.g., 1 or 2), you
should factor
out the constant from the test. E.g., do a = 1; b = 2; then do the
test with
On Mar 27, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
> First question, magma blows us way on division. Obviously,
> division by an
> integer (as in the timing below) could be made much faster by
> utilizing the fact
> that we have a scalar. However, this doesn't seem to be the issue
> sin
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:36:18AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
>
> > On 3/27/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > P.S.: Speed comparisons (all on sage.math). I've included the basic integer
>
> In all your timings below that involve a constant (e.g., 1 or 2), you
> should factor
>
Hi All,
Are any Sage evangelists planning to attend the East Coast Computer Algebra Day?
http://eccad07.washcoll.edu/
--jason
--
Jason Worth Martin
Asst. Prof. of Mathematics
James Madison University
http://www.math.jmu.edu/~martin
phone: (+1) 540-568-5101
fax: (+1) 540-568-6857
"Ever my hea
I see Didier Deshommes has registered. I just did as well,
but don't know (if or) when I'll how up (it depends on other
variables).
On 3/27/07, Jason Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Are any Sage evangelists planning to attend the East Coast Computer Algebra
> Day?
>
> http://ec
On 3/27/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there a much better way to find an inverse than
> > the extended euclidean algorithm?
>
> In general, I don't think so, but it's quite possible (in fact I
> think very likely) that magma has special code to deal with quadratic
> extensio
On 3/27/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ magma
> Magma V2.13-5 Tue Mar 27 2007 07:12:02 on sage [Seed = 1950028839]
> Type ? for help. Type -D to quit.
> > C:=QuadraticField(-1);
> > time for x in [1..10] do a:=I*I; end for;
> Time: 0.260
> > time f
Hi,
Would anybody like to volunteer to recreate the Conway polynomials
database from the raw text data? I screwed up and lost any code used
to create it. Let me know if you're interested in helping.
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://www.willia
I can help for about 1 week starting Thursday.
On 3/27/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Would anybody like to volunteer to recreate the Conway polynomials
> database from the raw text data? I screwed up and lost any code used
> to create it. Let me know if you're interes
Hi,
I am interested in using phc through sage, and it looks like phc.py is
pretty broken. I've hacked it up to work in blackbox mode (i.e. you
type 'phc -b inputfile outputfile' and it doesn't ask any questions),
and if there is any interest I can try to clean up my efforts.
Does anyone know if
On 3/27/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can help for about 1 week starting Thursday.
Thanks. I think the whole project will only take you a few hours, actually.
(I would do it, but I'm teaching a lot -- by my standards -- this
quarter.)Write
to me when you're available and I'
Feel free to bug me if you want help to export the data from GAP in
any particular format. The data there is a little old, Aug 2006, but
still pretty extensive. I'm not sure if the point if to double-check
them from the raw text. I'd be interested in checking for agreement
and coverage if the d
On Mar 27, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2007, at 16:42, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
>> In working with higher-precision real numbers, I've come across
>> this odd behavior:
>>
>> sage: RealField(200)(1.2)
>> 1.199955591079014993738383054733276367187500
>>
>>
On Mar 27, 10:07 am, "Hamptonio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am interested in using phc through sage, and it looks like phc.py is
> pretty broken. I've hacked it up to work in blackbox mode (i.e. you
> type 'phc -b inputfile outputfile' and it doesn't ask any questions),
> and if the
Hello,
I've released sage-2.4.1. It has:
* d roe: massively updated p-adics code
* r bradshaw: much misc code; Coleman integration
* misc bug fixes
This should be a painless upgrade for you.
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://www.will
Regarding (3), I'm arguing that is what is in your best interest. As
> far as I know, almost *nobody*
> has tried working with the SAGE notebook using
> notebook(system="gap")
> so if things don't work optimally when doing so, it's not surprising.
> Moreover, I want to emphasize that it would
On Mar 27, 12:12 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, I am aware that lots of doctests would break, but if its just a
> change in the last decimal or two(?) I'm OK with fixing that. I'm
> wondering if anyone knows of any algorithms/etc. that rely on MPFR 53-
> bit rather than nati
pardon my ignorance, as i'm sure it's been explainedbefore, but if
i've made local changes to the sage code, what's the proper way to
upgrade? if i type "sage -upgrade", will it clobber my changes? how do i
"merge in" the new features in going from, say, 2.3 to 2.4.1?
thanks.
kyle
--~--~
If you've made your changes in sage-main, it will try and merge them
in automatically when you do sage -upgrade. You have to check in your
local changes first. Probably the safest way is to re-name your
current sage-main to something else (e.g. sage-old). Then do a sage -
upgrade, and it wi
Thank you. This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for.
I knew about the range of values limitation, but was only vaguely
aware of the rest. The situation I'm thinking of is the default
implicit ring (e.g. when one enters "3.2") in which case the lack of
support for rounding
21 matches
Mail list logo
