leif wrote:
Dominique Laurain wrote:
I usually factor "small" polynomials...but this time I got a
"Segmentation fault" for a bigger one...is it ok to get that error (no
control of enough memory or processor task force to get the result) ?
Maybe I want t much :-) ... over the quota.?
Certa
Dominique Laurain wrote:
I usually factor "small" polynomials...but this time I got a
"Segmentation fault" for a bigger one...is it ok to get that error (no
control of enough memory or processor task force to get the result) ?
Maybe I want t much :-) ... over the quota.?
Certainly not a (o
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:58:37 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
>
> This suggests that element_from_data uses significant time. This is a
> generic conversion routine! Looking around in the call graph would probably
> show where this happens. Given most elements lie in the right ring already,
>
Thank all for your attention and the explanation of the error message.
I did replace the literal floats with symbols and it worked.
2014-06-03 14:24 GMT-04:00 Robert Dodier :
> On 2014-06-03, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> > It means Maxima, which gets used for integration, runs into a problem.
> > This
I usually factor "small" polynomials...but this time I got a "Segmentation
fault" for a bigger one...is it ok to get that error (no control of enough
memory or processor task force to get the result) ?
Maybe I want t much :-) ... over the quota.?
Dominique
Project-id: 6429970e-5a78-4aee-
As I can use the "Reduce" function to add 4 matrices copies (diff_table),
which were declared using the "zeros" function?. Here my code in SAGE
from mpi4py import MPI
from numpy import*
comm = MPI.COMM_WORLD
rank = comm.rank
rol = lambda val, r_bits, max_bits: \
(val <
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On 2014-05-21, David Joyner wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> I am trying to upload a new version of the Sage Tutorial to
>> createspace.com for those that want to buy a bound version.
>> (The royalties go directly to the Sage Foundation.) The last time
Post a minimal test case that exhibits your problem.
You probably need to add "from sage.geometry.cone import Cone"
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, pete.d...@port.ac.uk wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm a bit stumped trying to convert a Sage script that uses the inbuilt
> Cone type
Hi everyone,
I'm a bit stumped trying to convert a Sage script that uses the inbuilt
Cone type to a Cython/spyx script. After various errors and false starts,
the only modification I've made to the script is to put the line "from
sage.all import *" at the top, and obviously to change the extens
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 7:32:38 AM UTC-7, Markus-Ludwig Wermer wrote:
>
> Some basic multiplications were more than 10 times faster in Sage 6.1.1.
> Is there a way to speed up those multiplications?
>
We can get a reasonable first impression of what is taking most time by
profiling some code
This is a general Sage question, so I'm sending it to the sage-support
mailing list, which I encourage you to join:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sage-support
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Cyril Bdl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is this normal ?
>
> var('t')
> assume(t<1,t>-1)
> assume(t,'re
Hey everyone,
since my update to Sage 6.2 I noticed some timing issues when multiplying
elements of LaurentPolynomialRing() over some finite fields, say
FiniteField(25).
Some basic multiplications were more than 10 times faster in Sage 6.1.1.
Is there a way to speed up those multiplications?
A
12 matches
Mail list logo
