Happy to find one bug. [?]
Christophe
2012/10/29 Jason Grout
> On 10/29/12 2:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Christophe BAL
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> the following code takes more than one minute to acheive its job.
>>>
>>> Is there some technical problem w
On 10/29/12 2:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Christophe BAL wrote:
Hello,
the following code takes more than one minute to acheive its job.
Is there some technical problem with the server ?
Yes, it doesn't know French. Get rid of the e with the accent over it
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Christophe BAL wrote:
> Hello,
> the following code takes more than one minute to acheive its job.
>
> Is there some technical problem with the server ?
Yes, it doesn't know French. Get rid of the e with the accent over it in :
print "Nombre de divisi
Hello,
the following code takes more than one minute to acheive its job.
Is there some technical problem with the server ?
Christophe
Simple code =
def pgcdBoucle(a, b):
n = 0
if b > a:
a, b = b, a
while(b != 0):
a, b = b, a%b
n += 1
return (
Hi,
I need to performe a (numerical) cholesky factorization of a sparse
matrix (20x20) but I'm getting a error.
I look at this thread
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/sage-devel/cholesky/sage-devel/AW4pmKx49H4/7iuet3rWYQgJ
but it didn't help very much (and is a little old).
B
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 01:29:43PM +0100, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> > May be you are right. Powers of the matrix appear easier to implement
> > IMHO. After some reading I don't think you can do better than
> > O(n^(3-epsilon)) because of odd cycles.
>
> Ahahaahah. Well, implement the Matrix version a
> May be you are right. Powers of the matrix appear easier to implement
> IMHO. After some reading I don't think you can do better than
> O(n^(3-epsilon)) because of odd cycles.
Ahahaahah. Well, implement the Matrix version and I will implement the
graph thing. We could be checking the results ins
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:35:47AM -0700, P Purkayastha wrote:
>
> I wonder if it is less computationally demanding to walk around the graph
> than take powers of M, especially for large, but sparsely connected graphs.
>
May be you are right. Powers of the matrix appear easier to implement
IMHO.
On Monday, October 29, 2012 2:59:43 PM UTC+8, Georgi Guninski wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 07:17:59AM -0700, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Well, the documentation says
> > > "Computes the girth of the graph. For directed graphs, computes the
> > > girth of the undirected graph."
