On Nov 15, 2007 8:49 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, Sage does not have an implementation of computing
> a numerical approximation of erf(a) when a is not real, as PARI only
> provides this function in case a is real, and maxima also seems to
> only provide it in that
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now the question is, how to call the method, that does just that.
How about normalize() or standardize() ?
(Wikipedia says: "Generally, in mathematics, a canonical form (often
called normal form or standard form) of a
Oleksandr Pavlyk reports on the Wolfram Blog that he has computed the
10 millionth Bernoulli number using Mathematica:
http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/04/29/today-we-broke-the-bernoulli-record-from-the-analytical-engine-to-mathematica/
How does sage's Bernoulli number implementation compare? I'd lik
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Nils Bruin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Would it break Python too much if comparison would simply throw an
> exception in these cases?
Hardly, considering that this is what Python itself does:
>>> 1+1j > 1-1j
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1
On 5/22/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, here is what Mathematica does:
>
> In[7]:= N[Sin[10 Degree]]
> Out[7]= 0.173648
>
> I am in favor of something more like that, though I *loathe* adding
> anything further to the preparser. Maybe this is more pythonic:
>
>sage:
On 9/9/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Simpy is indeed an interesting package and could be useful in a future
> for rewriting the
> calculus package (replacing maxima)
>
> However. rather than incorporating it into Sage as a package, I feel
> that we will need to take some of it
dea.
I'd like to help out with this, but I won't have time in the near
future. Fortunately, it's not much work to implement from scratch if
anyone else thinks it's a good idea.
Fredrik Johansson
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send e
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> The link
> http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0010&L=nmbrthry&P=2988
> states the algorithm used, but in a way I don't understand. It says:
>
> "This value has been checked by computing pi(10^21+10^8) with
> a different paramet
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Fredrik, Just out of curiosity, is that the sort of algorithm you like
> to implement?
>
> William
Quite possibly, but I'm not familiar with any of these algorithms so
I'd need some practice to implement anything even remotely optimized.
Pe
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM, victor miller wrote:
> Fredrik, I just saw on the SAGE days 15 project list you have the
> Meissel-Lehmer-Lagarias-Miller-Odlyzko algorithm. I still have my old C
> code for this, if that would be a good start. I never looked in detail at
> the variants that were
Hi all, I could use some guidance for mpmath/Sage integration.
To put mpmath in Sage, I presume it should just be installed into
site-packages as a regular Python library, so I should create an spkg
that does the usual python setup.py install. (Is there a policy of
requiring the spkg to be a rele
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:51 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Thanks. I've cc'd Fredrik Johansson who can probably verify that the
> Mathematica output is right. This could be a new bug in Maxima, which
> should be reported to them. If it is, we might still have the opti
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:44 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Jason
> Grout wrote:
>>
>> William Stein wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I just wanted to let people know that David Ackerman -- a UW student who
>>> took my course on Sage last quarter -- is working (funded by NSF)
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Fredrik
> Johansson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:44 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Jason
>>> Grou
grant resources to support this
project, and for providing much encouragement. The new version of
mpmath will soon be available in Sage.
Enjoy,
Fredrik Johansson
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>
> Hi Fredrik,
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Fredrik
> Johansson wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Version 0.13 of mpmath is now available from the website:
>> http://code.google.com/p/mpmath/
&
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I noticed the following thread from the Maxima mailing list.
>
> --
> Regards
> Minh Van Nguyen
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Richard Fateman
> Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Maxima]
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Fredrik
Johansson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I noticed the following thread from the Maxima mailing list.
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> Minh Van Nguyen
>&
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Golam Mortuza
Hossain wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am preparing patches that will resolve
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465
>
> and will also move symbolic integration as a sub-class
> of SFunction into new symbolics.
>
>
> Currently, Sage allows omitting
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Golam Mortuza
>> Hossain wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am preparing patches that will resolve
>>>
>>> http://trac.sagemat
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:50 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On my laptop (OS X 64-bit Sage-4.1.1 and Mathematica 7.0):
>
> Test 1 -- sage (=mpfr) wins
>
> SAGE:
> sage: time a = N(pi, 500)
> CPU times: user 10.31 s, sys: 0.94 s, total: 11.26 s
> Wall time: 11.73 s
>
> MATHEMATICA:
> In[1]:= Timing
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Harald Schilly wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 12:24 am, Simon King wrote:
>>
>> So, over QQ, MMA is slightly faster, but over finite fields Sage
>> clearly wins? That is already something worth pointing out.
>>
>
> I'm not a mma expert, but since they have no system in pla
Hi,
How about supporting n! as a shortcut for factorial(n)? This syntax is
very convenient and makes a huge difference for combinatorial
expressions with many factorials. M&M (Maple & Mathematica) allow this
notation, as do many scientific calculators.
Although Python doesn't have any other post
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:56 PM, William Stein wrote:
> * Kevin Steuve: Compressing tables of differences between Li(x) and
> pi(x) by looking at differences of errors. Using lza only save 1/8 th
> disk space (thought we would get more). Also made my code use
> multi-core above $10^{12}$. To
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:14 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> I think that this is one of those times that you might like to look up
> in the literature how to do something, instead of pulling an
> "algorithm" out of your posterior. Stable evaluation of polynomials is
> the subject.
FYI, this is a simple imple
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:17 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> Oh, if you are not really evaluating polynomials but just adding up a
> long list of numbers, then you can try some kind of compensating sum
> e.g.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_summation_algorithm
>
> Though such things are perhaps unnecessar
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:58 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> Reading the bug report it seemed to me that the code was determining
> in some way that terms could be dropped off the sum because they were
> too small to contribute, and then
> stopped adding them in. Is that the "simple implementation bug"? Or is
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 4:07 AM, rjf wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 2, 5:32 pm, Fredrik Johansson
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:58 AM, rjf wrote:
>>
>> > Reading the bug report it seemed to me that the code was determining
>> > in some way that te
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:57 AM, rjf wrote:
> On Oct 3, 5:11 am, Fredrik Johansson
> wrote:
>
> My guess is that you have not talked this over with a numerical
> analyst.
No, and I suppose a might if a compelling case were presented to me
that I'm doing something wrong. So
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:53 PM, rjf wrote:
>>
>> >> The purpose of this code is *not* to add a list of binary
>> >> fractions accurately.
>>
>> > It is unlikely that the best way to add a list of any numbers that you
>> > are given is
>> > to start by throwing out information that provides the d
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 10:56 PM, rjf wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 4, 12:35 pm, Fredrik Johansson
> wrote:
> ...big snip.. which I may respond to later (or not..)
>
>
>> Indeed, without manually setting the precision,
>>
>> sage: maxima('bfloat(exp(1/%p
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:09 PM, rjf wrote:
> On Oct 4, 11:00 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You (or anyone else) could have followed Fredrik's frequent and
>> detailed blogposts here:
>>
>> http://planet.sympy.org/
>
> I quote from a recent entry by Frederik:
>
> "
>
> The tests above use
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:45 AM, rjf wrote:
>
> A much more interesting example is this (in Maxima)
>
> fpprec:16
> sin (bfloat(2)^1)
>
> -6.104079172368958b-1
>
> which is correct to 16 decimal places.
>
> Making this work by adding in more terms in the taylor series for
> sine would be a ve
Hi all,
This is mostly some random brainstorming. MPFR (which Sage uses for
arbitrary-precision real and complex numbers) is an excellent library,
but it's far from optimal in some respects.
For one thing, the interface (correct rounding assuming exact inputs)
is coarse for doing computations wit
Hi all,
I started this project: http://code.google.com/p/fastfunlib/
I'm going to implement algorithms that I originally prototyped in
Python or Cython for mpmath earlier this year; I'm doing it in plain C
since the code mostly involves plain GMP/MPIR calls and additional
dependencies aren't rea
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> Sounds interesting. I'm curious--what kind of savings are you getting
> over the Python and Cython versions (for, say, the 100-1000 bit range)?
>
> - Robert
It's 6-7 times faster than my prototype Cython code in that range.
However, the
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:51 AM, John H Palmieri
wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2:14 pm, William Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:02 PM, John H Palmieri
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 22, 8:57 am, William Stein wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:11 AM, John H Palmieri
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >
I recommended Juan to post to sage-devel because there are people here
who are knowledgeable about zeta and L-function computations. The code
and results look good to me, and I would like to add it to mpmath, but
maybe some people here have comments and can provide a more in-depth
review of the alg
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:55 PM, j. arias-de-reyna wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> I pretended to send with this message my program and a pdf file with
>> some benchmarks. But I do not know how to do it. I will s
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, David Joyner wrote:
> So Sympy is consistent in terms of the diff/integrate syntax. However,
> For plot and integrate, the syntax is slightly different:
>
> sage: sympy.integrate( f, [x, 0, pi], [y, 0, pi])
> pi - 1/pi*sin(pi**2)
> sage: sympy.Plot( f, [x, 0, pi, n
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Luiz Felipe Martins
wrote:
>
> Does Sage have an implementation of Euler's summation formula (aka he
> Euler-Maclaurin formula)?
It is implemented in SymPy:
>>> from sympy import *
>>> k = Symbol('k')
>>> s, err = Sum(1/k, (k, 1, 10**6)).euler_maclaurin(10,10)
>
Hi,
Looking around, it seems Sage does not yet implement harmonic numbers
(except via SymPy)? If anyone is interested, I benchmarked a few
different algorithms and blogged about it here:
http://fredrik-j.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-not-to-compute-harmonic-numbers.html
Besides (generalized) harmonic
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Paul Zimmermann
wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I can post to sage-devel. Anyway, if computing Stirling numbers
> reduces to compute factorial-like expressions, the best algorithm I know is
> due to Schönhage; Cf for example for double factorials:
> http://gmplib.org/list
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Here's something to try:
FYI, I compiled sage-windows-0-3 with the freeware Visual C++ 2008
Express Edition and it seems to work. At least both sympy and pylab
work.
Running sage results in the following (not much in dir()...?):
C:\source
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Ahmed Fasih wrote:
>
> Greetings. This might not qualify as interesting or relevant, but for
> my own research, I wrote a Sage app to calculate via Monte Carlo
> approximation the Cramer-Rao bounds for estimating certain target
> parameters from synthetic aperture
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:37 PM, John Cremona wrote:
> I assumed that Stirling numbers would be in Sage as part of sage-combinat
> but it seems that we just wrap two GAP functions. Are we as fast as we
> could be? And does Neil Sloane read any of our lists as he clearly does
> pari-users?
Rela
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
> Does anyone have an email address for Fredrik Johansson? Or Fredrik,
> do you read sage-devel?
I do.
> I have implemented code for computing Riemann theta functions
> (elliptic and Siegel); you might have a look
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:41 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Nick Alexander
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13-Apr-09, at 8:08 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>>>
Actually, it's not using fast_callable yet, but I do plan on changing
that (which should make things much fa
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:14 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Wikipedia also has a few interesting remarks, e.g., that the Risch
> algorithm isn't an algorithm, because it depends on being able to
> check equality of general elementary functions, which is evidently an
> open problem in general (so in
Hi all,
I'm very soon going to release mpmath 0.14. One of the most important
changes for Sage is a large speedup due to a faster backend (written in
Cython), to be located in sage.libs.mpmath. For the necessary additions to
sage.libs.mpmath, see this ticket:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/tic
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Harald Schilly wrote:
> Hi, I think for testing it would be best if there is an
> mpmath-0.14.spkg ... That ensures that we all test exactly the same
> configuration and it avoids errors that might happen after testing
> when packing it together in an spkg.
>
> I c
pmath mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/group/mpmath
Enjoy, and extra thanks to Juan Arias de Reyna, Vinzent Steinberg, Jorn
Baayen and Chris Smith who contributed to this version.
Fredrik Johansson
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:40 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:11 am, John Cremona wrote:
> > On 19 February 2010 06:32, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> >
> > > This is the final alpha release of Sage 4.3.3. The next release would
> > > be an rc0. The development version of Sage
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Harald Schilly wrote:
> I found a table by NIST comparing sage with other software packages.
> It's probably interesting for what they are looking for and I think
> some entries are missing (feedback link at the bottom). Maybe worth
> checking this out for the futu
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Sergey Bochkanov <
sergey.bochka...@alglib.net> wrote:
> correction to my previous message:
>
> > It leads to unnecessary allocation of temporaries and some
> > performance penalty (about 25-30% for 128-bit precision).
>
> Sorry, I made a mistake when es
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Oh my, I never noticed this! I'd been looking for mpfr_addmul in line
> with GMP!! I see it is slightly different in that it doesn't do a = a
> + b*c.
>
> I can actually speed some code up with this!!
>
> Bill.
>
> Nice. Indeed, I specified the f
list:
http://groups.google.com/group/mpmath
Enjoy,
Fredrik Johansson
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:40 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > I suggest that Sage just find a different IRC server.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
I've heard good things about OFTC.
Fredrik
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an ema
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Hi Fredrik,
>
> Congratulations. That looks fantastic.
>
> I see you now even have elliptic functions!
>
> Can I ask you a question. I haven't been following your blog (but
> should have). Perhaps you can point me to a post if you already deal
> w
Hi all,
If someone has a bit of spare time, a patch to upgrade mpmath to version
0.15 is waiting for review here:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9152
There is an spkg, and a patch for the extension module in Sage (both must be
installed simultaneously).
Fredrik
--
To post to this gr
Hi,
sage -clone new_branch takes 15 minutes on my "fast" laptop (and about
twice that time on my slow laptop). Nearly all that time (~14 minutes)
is spent rebuilding the entire documentation. The documentation
shouldn't change when a fresh clone is created, and Sphinx supports
updating only change
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
> I've found something strange with mpmath's hypergeometric functions:
>
> sage: f = lambda n: sum(binomial(n,k)^2 * 2^k for k in range(n+1))
> sage: g = lambda n: (-f(n) + 8*f(n-1) - 3*f(n-2))/8
>
> Now define:
>
> sage: h = lambda n: catalan_numb
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:48 AM, maldun wrote:
> Do you see the problems?! These are caused by the high oscillation,
> but we get no warning.
> If you use scipy you would get the following:
It is possible to get an error estimate back from mpmath, as follows:
sage: mpmath.quad(lambda a: mpmath.
://mpmath.googlecode.com/svn/tags/0.16/doc/build/index.html
Bug reports and other comments are welcome on the issue tracker at
http://code.google.com/p/mpmath/issues/list or the mpmath mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/group/mpmath
Enjoy,
Fredrik Johansson
--
To post to this group, send an email to
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-nt/KfBOs2_00R0/aItrAEkdiIAJ
>
> this indicates it's a Sage bug, not an mpmath bug.
Indeed, this loop reveals two memory leaks in the extension code for
mpmath in Sage. Ouch! I wonder who wrote that code
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-nt/KfBOs2_00R0/aItrAEkdiIAJ
>>
>> this indicates it's a Sage bug, not an mpmath bug.
>
> Indeed, this loop
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Jonathan Bober wrote:
> Does anyone happen to know why this happens? I have a feeling it is going to
> annoy my sometime soon.
You can prevent mpmath from trying to import Sage altogether by
setting the MPMATH_NOSAGE environment variable. Of course, this makes
the
imports, but then later it tries to use them.
Oh right, this is a bug in mpmath. It was fixed a while ago but there
hasn't been a release since then.
https://github.com/fredrik-johansson/mpmath/commit/9c5b5ad0f58d73d973a0ff6425ebcdc28a71a52e
Fredrik
--
To post to this group, send an
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 13:29, David Roe wrote:
> I see from the list of projects at Sage Days 35
> (http://wiki.sagemath.org/SageFlintDays/projects) that an effort was made to
> get FLINT 2 into Sage. Can someone involved let me know what the status of
> that effort is? Sage Days 36 starts tomo
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:59, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am going to give a talk about Sage at the ECrypt PhD Summer School on Tools
>
> https://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/ecrypt/courses/mykonos12/index.shtml
>
> For that I tried to compile an overview on where we stand in terms of
I'm proud to announce the initial release of FLINT 3.0. The FLINT 3
series is a complete rewrite of FLINT (Fast Library for Number Theory)
from scratch, like FLINT 2.x was a complete rewrite of FLINT 1.x
before it.
FLINT 3.0 is available as an interactive interpreter at:
http://www.flintlib.org/fl
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> But I think Fredrik had some figures which show we beat Sage.
Yes, even for small primes. Multiplying two 1000x1000 matrices mod p =
17 takes 2.27 seconds in Sage and 1.05 seconds with FLINT 2's
nmod_mat's. The corresponding time in FLINT 2 for
/build/index.html or
http://mpmath.googlecode.com/svn/tags/0.17/doc/build/index.html
Bug reports and other comments are welcome on the issue tracker at
http://code.google.com/p/mpmath/issues/list or the mpmath mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/group/mpmath
Enjoy,
Fredrik Johansson
--
To post
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Francois Bissey
wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 at 01:26PM -0800, jtyard wrote:
>> > I'm running sage 4.6.1 and cannot use plot after loading mpmath.
>> > Namely, running
>> >
>> > > from mpmath import *
>> > > plot(lambda t: sin(2*pi*t), [1, 4])
>> >
>> > produces no
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 3/1/11 3:58 AM, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Francois Bissey
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 at 01:26PM -0800, jtyard wrote:
>>>>>
&g
Hi all,
Maybe it's just me, but I find it terribly annoying that one cannot
paste code fragments containing indentation in a Sage terminal
session, as one can with the ordinary Python interpreter. Simple
example:
def f(x):
if x == 1:
return 2
return 1
>>> def f(x):
... if x =
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Pablo De Napoli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Though Sage has some extensive support for Riemann zeta function and
> L-series (through. lcal) , it seems to
> have no function for computing some common generalizations of it, like
> Hurwitz zeta function o Lerch trascendent.
>
> I
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:09 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> Fredrik, is it possible to compute other Dirichlet series using
> mpmath? That is, ones that aren't necessarily L-functions, like at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirichlet_series? I couldn't find this
> on that page, but perhaps they're elsewhe
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:53 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> Just the basic ones, like with Moebius mu or some other arithmetic
> function in it. I'd like to have something like
> http://mpmath.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/build/functions/zeta.html#dirichlet
> except where I could slap in any old arithmetic
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:46 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> That would be nice, but I don't know how much you can do numerically
>> given a "black-box" sequence.
>
> So you are saying one couldn't do anything even if one made an
> assumption about polynomial growth (i.e., lots less than the
> exponential
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:30 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>> There's an interesting article in the August AMS Notices (available
>> here: http://www.ams.org/notices/201107/rtx110700905p.pdf) on the NIST
>> Digital Library, an online + print updatin
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It is with great pleasure that we finally release FLINT version 2.3.0
> (see http://www.flintlib.org/).
>
> Documentation (282 pp.) is available at http://www.flintlib.org/flint-2.3.pdf.
>
> This huge release contains the following new
Matrix_integer_dense.rank first tries to establish that the matrix has
full rank modulo a random prime. If this fails, it calls Linbox. As
far as I can see, the rank() function in Linbox (in matrix-rank.h)
also just computes the rank modulo one random prime. Am I just looking
at the wrong functions
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Two pieces of good news today:
>
> * The new SHA-3 candidate has been announced following a five-year
> period of intense scrutiny.
>
> * The winner is Keccak, whose authors used Sage in the design of the
> algorithm.
>
> The news
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:54 PM, mmarco wrote:
> Is there some reason for this or is it a bug? Shouldn't the answer be,
> at least, a sage Integer and not a python int?
Returning a Sage Integer would be consistent with this:
sage: type(sqrt(1))
sage: type(sqrt(2))
Fredrik
--
You received t
On Mar 20, 5:50 pm, kcrisman wrote:
> Bill et al.,
>
> Along these lines, I'm just curious
> abouthttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12173upgrading FLINT in
> Sage... Is enough of zn_poly (in particular, all of it?) to allow us to
> remove that spkg? Since that code is more or less unmain
Hi all,
Version 0.1 of the ore_algebra package for Sage has been released:
http://www.risc.jku.at/research/combinat/software/ore_algebra/
The package is being developed by Manuel Kauers, Maximilian Jaroschek
and myself. A tutorial paper (as well as Sphinx documentation) is
available on the web si
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Fredrik,
>
> On 2013-06-18, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Version 0.1 of the ore_algebra package for Sage has been released:
>> http://www.risc.jku.at/research/combinat/software/ore_algebra/
>
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:00 AM, leif wrote:
> Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Version 0.1 of the ore_algebra package for Sage has been released:
>> http://www.risc.jku.at/research/combinat/software/ore_algebra/
>
>
> Did you open a ticke
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Stefan wrote:
>
>> Did you open a ticket to make it an optional package available from the
>> usual spkg repositories?
>>
>> [It should perhaps at least be available / listed in the "experimental"
>> category.]
>>
>>
>> Or maybe (haven't looked at it yet) it viola
Curious that no one seems to have attempted to port Rubi to Sage yet!
Perhaps a possible project for next year's GSoC?
Fredrik
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:51:39 PM UTC+2, Eviatar wrote:
>
> Thought this might be of interest to sage-devel.
>
> On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 10:01:07 UTC-7, Pe
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
> I've opened #15574 for updating FLINT in Sage.
> It should be trivial, though I've had no time to craft an spkg yet (or
> rather make what's needed in the new workflow).
Thanks.
Once it's updated, it should also be straightforward to wr
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:01:29 PM UTC+1, William wrote:
>
> 2. Thanks for clarifying your original question. It's surprising that
> MPFR is a full *order of magnitude* slower than PARI at computing
> gamma on real input.It's pretty likely that when the line of code
> in question was
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Zimmermann Paul
wrote:
>William,
>
> thank you for putting me in cc.
>
>> From: William Stein
>> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 06:01:29 -0800
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:55 AM, wrote:
>> > Ah, I see what you mean. If that's the case then I understand. How
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Zimmermann Paul
wrote:
>Dear Jori,
>
>> And reason is of course clear, as Fredrik Johansson wrote "If you cache
>> Bernoulli numbers, - -".
>
> in fact there is another reason: the MPFR code computes the Bernoulli numbers
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 3:10:33 AM UTC+9, Jonas Jermann wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Could someone familiar with flint/sage enable flint's
> revert_series (for rational/integer polynomials)?
>
> (Sorry if it was already implemented somewhere and I missed it).
>
> Attached is a small, non-intrusive
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Jonas Jermann wrote:
> I agree, but somehow the "flint import" details are slightly different.
> I also saw a different name somewhere, "reverse_series". So I was not
> sure how to exactly import it for nmod. I would appreciate if someone
> familiar with flint coul
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Jonas Jermann wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On 21.07.2014 13:10, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Jonas Jermann
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree, but somehow the "flint import" details are sli
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:06:02 PM UTC+2, wstein wrote:
>
> Hi -- Another question. You just deleted this [1] below -- does flint
> really solidly beat it?
>
FLINT uses the same formula for 4x4 determinants, so the difference should
be negligible (just the difference in overhead between th
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Marc Masdeu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:08 PM, William A Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 13, 2014, Marc Masdeu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:17:55
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
