In a message dated 1/18/2009 8:20:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mhan...@gmail.com writes:
Do you have any particular computations that you want to run on all
these machines? At the moment, unless you have something specific in
mind where it makes sense to use a distributed solution, it
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:30 PM, A. Jorge Garcia wrote:
>
> OK, if I run a local notebook() on my dualcore, how do I make use of
> both cores?
If you have two open worksheets, they'll run as two separate processes
which can run on different cores. Or, you can use the @parallel
decorator to make
Oh, and I guess I should mention that I'm using debian linux, not
vmware.
TIA,
A. Jorge Garcia
calcp...@aol.com
http://calcpage.tripod.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-edu" group.
To post to
OK, if I run a local notebook() on my dualcore, how do I make use of
both cores?
Also, I have 25 dualcores in my classroom, so can I make use of all 50
cores as a grid?
TIA,
A. Jorge Garcia
calcp...@aol.com
http://calcpage.tripod.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You rece
Nice!
Thanx,
A. Jorge Garcia
calcp...@aol.com
http://calcpage.tripod.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-edu" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-edu@googlegroups.com
To unsubscrib
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On Jan 17, 2009, at 5:51 AM, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> BTW, if www.sagenb.org runs on a single PC with a quadcore, the
>> question still remains, is Sage multicore aware without dSage or are
>> you using dSage here?
>
> Some of the u
On Jan 17, 2009, at 5:51 AM, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
> BTW, if www.sagenb.org runs on a single PC with a quadcore, the
> question still remains, is Sage multicore aware without dSage or are
> you using dSage here?
Some of the underlaying components, like ATLAS, can be compiled to be
multicore
BTW, if www.sagenb.org runs on a single PC with a quadcore, the
question still remains, is Sage multicore aware without dSage or are
you using dSage here?
TIA,
A. Jorge Garcia
calcp...@aol.com
http://calcpage.tripod.com
Teacher & Professor
Applied Mathematics, Physics & Computer Science
Baldwi
In a message dated 1/15/2009 8:04:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rober...@math.washington.edu writes:
Of course, these latest Mersenne primes aren't known to have been
discovered in order.
Good point, I'm calling it M46 because its the largest one and 46 are known.
However, GIMP
On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:57 PM, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/15/2009 7:53:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> wst...@gmail.com writes:
> It wasn't. 2^3021377-1 is the third largest known and the next two
> larger are
> only slightly bigger.
> I was calculating M37 which is the la
On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:53 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>> [[his
>>> timing turns
>>> out to really have been of printing out the answer via the notebook.
>>> better would be to do
>>> sage: time s = 2^3021377-1
>>> CPU time: 0.00 s, Wall time: 0.00 s
>>> sage: time open('output.txt','w').write(str
In a message dated 1/15/2009 7:53:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
wst...@gmail.com writes:
It wasn't. 2^3021377-1 is the third largest known and the next two larger
are
only slightly bigger.
I was calculating M37 which is the largest known Mersenne less than 10^6
digits long.
_ww
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:39 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:10 PM, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
That's interesting because I calculated M37 = 2^3021
In a message dated 1/15/2009 7:39:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
wst...@gmail.com writes:
better would be to do
sage: time s = 2^3021377-1
CPU time: 0.00 s, Wall time: 0.00 s
sage: time open('output.txt','w').write(str(s))
CPU time: 0.70 s, Wall time: 0.70 s
Ah, yes, this is much be
On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:39 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:10 PM, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> That's interesting because I calculated M37 = 2^3021377-1 (909526
>>> digits) on a 2.6 GHz pentium 4 using my own C++ cl
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:30 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 1/15/2009 7:18:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> wst...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Computing M with Sage takes less than *one second* for me on sagenb.org:
>
> Wow, what algorithm is being used?
I don't know. It's whatever is in GMP:
ht
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:10 PM, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> That's interesting because I calculated M37 = 2^3021377-1 (909526
>> digits) on a 2.6 GHz pentium 4 using my own C++ class to represent
>> large ints and it about 2 hours.
>>
>> I
BTW, the 6 minutes included printing out the answer!
HTH,
A. Jorge Garcia
Teacher & Professor
Applied Mathematics, Physics & Computer Science
Baldwin Senior High School & Nassau Community College
_calcp...@aol.com_ (mailto:calcp...@aol.com)
_http://calcpage.tripod.com_ (http://calcpage.trip
On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:25 PM, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
> OK, I'm confused about the time procedure. What's the difference
> between
> sage: time s = 2^3021377-1
> CPU time: 0.00 s, Wall time: 0.00 s
The variable s now holds the integer 2^3021377-1, represented
internally in binary.
> and
>
In a message dated 1/15/2009 7:18:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
wst...@gmail.com writes:
Computing M with Sage takes less than *one second* for me on sagenb.org:
Wow, what algorithm is being used?
TIA,
A. Jorge Garcia
Teacher & Professor
Applied Mathematics, Physics & Computer Scie
In a message dated 1/15/2009 7:18:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
wst...@gmail.com writes:
Why don't you try using Sage on your 2.6Ghz Pentium 4 to do the computation?
I would, however that program and that hardware are long since gone. I'm
trying to reconstruct how they worked from s
OK, I'm confused about the time procedure. What's the difference between
sage: time s = 2^3021377-1
CPU time: 0.00 s, Wall time: 0.00 s
and
sage: time k = str(s)
CPU time: 0.67 s, Wall time: 0.67 s
TIA,
A. Jorge Garcia
Teacher & Professor
Applied Mathematics, Physics & Computer Science
B
On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:10 PM, calcp...@aol.com wrote:
> That's interesting because I calculated M37 = 2^3021377-1 (909526
> digits) on a 2.6 GHz pentium 4 using my own C++ class to represent
> large ints and it about 2 hours.
>
> I calculated the same thing on www.sagenb.org and it took about
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM, wrote:
> That's interesting because I calculated M
> 37 = 2^3021377-1 (909526 digits) on a 2.6 GHz pentium 4 using my own C++
> class to represent large ints and it about 2 hours.
>
> I calculated the same thing on www.sagenb.org and it took about 6 minutes!
>
>
That's interesting because I calculated M37 = 2^3021377-1 (909526 digits) on
a 2.6 GHz pentium 4 using my own C++ class to represent large ints and it
about 2 hours.
I calculated the same thing on _www.sagenb.org_ (http://www.sagenb.org) and
it took about 6 minutes!
Well, I suppose 4 Xeo
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:57 PM, A. Jorge Garcia wrote:
>
> Just wondering what hardware you are using to run the online notebook
> () server? I don't suppose its some sort of cluster using dSage?
sagenb.org is just running on a virtual machine on William Stein's
desktop machine. It ha
26 matches
Mail list logo
