Just wondering what hardware you are using to run the online notebook
() server? I don't suppose its some sort of cluster using dSage?
The reason I ask is because I was just calculating to large mersenne
primes on www.sagenb.org and they came back pretty fast!
TIA,
A. Jorge Garcia
Teacher & Pr
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
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
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!
>
>
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
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
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
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
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
>
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 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
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 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
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 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 7:53:24 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 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
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
