The old fashioned gmp-ecm interface:
sage: ecm.find_factor(2^2^7+1)
[59649589127497217, 5704689200685129054721]
sage: ecm.get_last_params()
{'B1': '19929', 'B2': '3804582', 'poly': 'x^1', 'sigma': '1643647236'}
the proposed, new one:
sage: import sage.libs.libecm
sage: from sage.libs.libecm impo
2008/12/16 Robert Bradshaw :
>
> On Dec 16, 2008, at 7:47 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>> On Dec 16, 7:44 am, "William Stein" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I posted a patch there that does some error checking at least. It's
>>> minimal. I hope somebody will referee it asap so it can go in
>>> sage-3.2.2.
>>>
>
On Dec 16, 10:44 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2008, at 7:47 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> > sage: import sage.libs.libecm
> > sage: from sage.libs.libecm import ecmfactor
> > sage: result = ecmfactor(999, 0.00)
> > sage: result in [(True, 27), (True, 37), (True, 999)]
> >
On Dec 16, 2008, at 7:47 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> On Dec 16, 7:44 am, "William Stein" wrote:
>
>
>
>> I posted a patch there that does some error checking at least. It's
>> minimal. I hope somebody will referee it asap so it can go in
>> sage-3.2.2.
>>
>> The real longterm solution to this probl
On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Dear Lars, dear Robert,
>
>> The explanation is hidden in a footnote in the tutorial. Please see
>> "Defining Functions" in "More Control Flow Tools" in the Python
>> Tutorial:http://docs.python.org/tutorial/controlflow.html#defining-
>> function
On Dec 16, 2008, at 07:44 , William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Justin C. Walker
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2008, at 07:17 , William Stein wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:50 AM, achrzesz wrote:
Hallo,
I'm wondering what goes wrong with tis
On Dec 16, 7:44 am, "William Stein" wrote:
> I posted a patch there that does some error checking at least. It's
> minimal. I hope somebody will referee it asap so it can go in
> sage-3.2.2.
>
> The real longterm solution to this problem is to totally rewrite the
> GMP interface so that it
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2008, at 07:17 , William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:50 AM, achrzesz wrote:
>>>
>>> Hallo,
>>> I'm wondering what goes wrong with tis:
>>>
>>> (sage 3.2 compiled from sources, ubuntu 8.04, quad core 2.
On Dec 16, 2008, at 07:17 , William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:50 AM, achrzesz wrote:
>>
>> Hallo,
>> I'm wondering what goes wrong with tis:
>>
>> (sage 3.2 compiled from sources, ubuntu 8.04, quad core 2.4 GHz)
>>
>>
>> sage: for k in range(14,21):
>> : f=2^2^k+1;w=e
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:50 AM, achrzesz wrote:
>
> Hallo,
> I'm wondering what goes wrong with tis:
>
> (sage 3.2 compiled from sources, ubuntu 8.04, quad core 2.4 GHz)
>
>
> sage: for k in range(14,21):
> : f=2^2^k+1;w=ecm.find_factor(f);[w[0],prod(w)==f]
> :
> [2, False]
> [5239
Thanks to everyone for the advice. I will try out your suggestions
shortly; right now I am refraining from using Ubuntu for unrelated
reasons (negligence on my part has caused some problems that I need to
stay away from for a bit in order to troubleshoot). The Ubuntu is 64-
bit version and not 32.
And this just came over the scipy mailing list:
[quote]
Robert Kern wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I think found it using this clue. It's a bug in SPECFUN. The
> > "IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION" statement is missing "A" so A0 is REAL
> > rather than DOUBLE. Fixing that makes both of them go through the same
> >
Hallo,
I'm wondering what goes wrong with tis:
(sage 3.2 compiled from sources, ubuntu 8.04, quad core 2.4 GHz)
sage: for k in range(14,21):
: f=2^2^k+1;w=ecm.find_factor(f);[w[0],prod(w)==f]
:
[2, False]
[523923, False]
[1901173, False]
[2, False]
[2, False]
[30539, False]
[2, Fal
13 matches
Mail list logo
