This is actually an open ticket at the LinBox trac: see
http://linalg.org/projects/linalg/ticket/3
I have updated our ticket description with a link to the LinBox
ticket.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@goog
[I am now CCing linbox-use]
On Aug 28, 10:31 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> This is actually an open ticket at the LinBox trac:
> seehttp://linalg.org/projects/linalg/ticket/3
>
> I have updated our ticket description with a link to the LinBox
> ticket.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mic
No problems with installing package and patch.
However, I can't get it to work, nor can I find a
lie.py file in sage/interfaces. Obviously something
is wrong. Can you give a command which works, like
lie.eval("diagram(E8)")
or something plese?
++=
On 8/
Hello David,
I didn't include the interface with the spkg. It's in the HG bundle.
I've attached the lie.py file. It just needs to put in
sage/interfaces/ . Then, the following line should be added to
sage/interfaces/all.py :
from lie import lie, lie_console, LiE
There is a bit of documentatio
That worked.
Looks like you've done a fantastic job.
Thanks very much for doing this!
On 8/28/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> I didn't include the interface with the spkg. It's in the HG bundle.
> I've attached the lie.py file. It just needs to put in
> sage/inter
Great. Hopefully, we can get it included in the main distribution here shortly.
--Mike
On 8/28/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That worked.
> Looks like you've done a fantastic job.
> Thanks very much for doing this!
>
>
> On 8/28/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > H
Hello,
the 2.8.3 release is getting close. If you want to help out check out
the 2.8.3 milestone, there are still 20 or so ticket open.
Another possibility is to compile test the new Lie spkg - see
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/bfa83514467cdfe6
(fairly toward the
On Aug 28, 9:16 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/28/07, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It computes the determinant as follows:
>
> > sage: M=Matrix(Integers(),20,20,L)
> > sage: M.det()
> > 3951360
> > sage: M.rank()
> > 20
> > Can anybody verify that this is
On 8/28/07, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It computes the determinant as follows:
>
> sage: M=Matrix(Integers(),20,20,L)
> sage: M.det()
> 3951360
> sage: M.rank()
> 20
> Can anybody verify that this is the correct result?
Yep, via PARI (also in SAGE):
sage: gp(M).matdet()
3951360
On 8/28/07, Iftikhar Burhanuddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear William,
>
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, William Stein wrote:
> > On 8/19/07, Iftikhar Burhanuddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > There was a huge bug-squashing day today with many people at over
> > > > 30 SAGE bugs fixed. The most
Hello,
Clement Pernet did post a quick workaround for the problem. A new
linbox.spkg is at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/linbox-20070828.spkg
It computes the determinant as follows:
sage: M=Matrix(Integers(),20,20,L)
sage: M.det()
3951360
sage: M.rank()
20
Can anybody
On 8/28/07, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the 2.8.3 release is getting close. If you want to help out check out
> the 2.8.3 milestone, there are still 20 or so ticket open.
>
> Another possibility is to compile test the new Lie spkg - see
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_
I've coded up binomial expansion in the FLINT polynomial powering
function for the special case of exponentiating length 2 polynomials.
Here are the times for raising (x+1) to the power n = 2^13-1:
real0m0.040s
user0m0.020s
sys 0m0.020s
Here are the times for n = 2^13:
real0m0.
Hi,
In SAGE until now 0^0 gave 1 as answer. We are almost certainly going to change
this to raise an ArithmeticError. Does anybody have any strong
feelings about this?
By the way, Magma, PARI, Gap, and Maple all give 1 as the output for 0^0.
Mathematica and Maxima both raise an error.
-- Will
Hello,
I did some valgrinding of the following code:
def Supercomp():
p=ZZ(10**4).next_prime()
szfilename = "timings100k.txt"
mem_szfilename = "memory100k.txt"
for I in range(5):
t = cputime()
M = get_memory_usage()
X = SupersingularModule(p)
I upgraded from XCode 2.2 to 2.4.1, and this seems to fix the problem
(although I don't really understand why).
It compiles fine now and all tests pass.
I will close the ticket now.
david
On Aug 14, 2007, at 3:46 PM, David Harvey wrote:
> Something goes wrong in LAPACK build:
>
> sage-spkg
I did some more work on the FLINT version of this, especially the
memory management. The times now look like this:
real0m0.030s
user0m0.016s
sys 0m0.016s
Bill.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To
Hi,
In preparation for including FLINT in SAGE, I've created an experimental
FLINT sage package. Try building it:
./sage -f -m flint-0.1.spkg
If this works, do
cd spkg/build/flint-0.1/src
and try some of the test programs, e.g.,
./Z_mpn-test
NOTE: The above only builds code in spkg
On an intel macbook, install went fine but
ZmodF_mul-test had a failure.
On 8/28/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In preparation for including FLINT in SAGE, I've created an experimental
> FLINT sage package. Try building it:
>
>./sage -f -m flint-0.1.spkg
>
> If t
FLINT built and installed fine on a Core 2 Duo with Ubuntu 7.04.
--Mike
On 8/28/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On an intel macbook, install went fine but
> ZmodF_mul-test had a failure.
>
>
> On 8/28/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In preparati
William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In preparation for including FLINT in SAGE, I've created an experimental
> FLINT sage package. Try building it:
>
>./sage -f -m flint-0.1.spkg
>
> If this works, do
>cd spkg/build/flint-0.1/src
> and try some of the test programs, e.g.,
>./Z_mpn-test
as long as the polynomial x^0 continues to evaluate to 1 at x=0, i'm happy
with defining 0^0 to be whatever.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In SAGE until now 0^0 gave 1 as answer. We are almost certainly going to
> change
> this to raise an ArithmeticError. Does anybo
Hi,
I'm completely and totally swamped by patches and improvements to SAGE
that so many people are sending me. *By far* the best chance you have for
getting your patch into SAGE is to create a trac ticket at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac
for your patch, describe your patch there, att
On 8/28/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In SAGE until now 0^0 gave 1 as answer. We are almost certainly going to
> change
> this to raise an ArithmeticError. Does anybody have any strong
> feelings about this?
> By the way, Magma, PARI, Gap, and Maple all give 1 as the output f
On 8/28/07, Kyle Schalm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> as long as the polynomial x^0 continues to evaluate to 1 at x=0, i'm happy
> with defining 0^0 to be whatever.
Well, suppose that were the case. What then should the expression
0^x evaluate to at x=0?
Steve
--~--~-~--~~-
On 8/28/07, Stephen Forrest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/28/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In SAGE until now 0^0 gave 1 as answer. We are almost certainly going to
> > change
> > this to raise an ArithmeticError. Does anybody have any strong
> > feelings about this?
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
