Hmmm this sounds like a bug in the cputime() command. I will ask
around on the sage-devel list.
david
On Apr 19, 2007, at 3:52 AM, DanK wrote:
> For the problem with the negative time i have started following
> computation:
>
> Zeit=cputime()
> for i in range(10):
> g=maxima('193^99484')
Hi,
sorry for the three posts, but I dont find the button to edit my older
posts.
I have fixed the Error in the following time and in the first few
tests the algorithm now only needs half of the time.
I fixed it the following way:
T=Integers(4096)
S=Integers(p)
for i in range(1,((p-1)/2)+1):
e=
Hi
I have tried to fasten up the modluar arithmetic at the point you
mentioned:
>for i in range(1,((p-1)/2)+1):
> e=i^(p-1-t)%p
in the following way:
S=Integers(p)
for i in range(1,((p-1)/2)+1):
e=S(i)^(p-1-t)
but then I get a error message at the following point:
e0=e%4096
error me
I will try to fasten the modular arithmetic.
For the problem with the negative time i have started following
computation:
Zeit=cputime()
for i in range(10):
g=maxima('193^99484')
Ergebnis=cputime(Zeit)
print Ergebnis
and get following intressting result:
130.62
262.78
393.85
524.81
656.
On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:52 AM, DanK wrote:
>for i in range(1,((p-1)/2)+1):
> e=i^(p-1-t)%p
Here is another example where modular arithmetic is important.
The variable i could be as large as about p/2, and you are raising it
to a power which is about as large as p. That means that i^(p-
I want to add:
I have a Toshiba Laptop with Intel centrino processor, 1,73 Ghz and
1GB Ram and windows XP on it.
Daniel Köhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [E
Hi,
I want to thank you for your fast and detailed help. I worked with the
text you mentioned in your post and you are right, that the
computation of the irregular pairs should take the most time of the
algorithm. In my algorithm I´m doing both first the irregular pairs,
with the command bernoull
On Apr 17, 2007, at 3:44 PM, DanK wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> for low p the computations are no problem and the time shown in the
> results seemed to be correct. But by larger p around 10 it takes
> about 5 to 8 hours on the wall clock and the results seem tob be
> correct, but the time is negative.
Hi,
for low p the computations are no problem and the time shown in the
results seemed to be correct. But by larger p around 10 it takes
about 5 to 8 hours on the wall clock and the results seem tob be
correct, but the time is negative.
Daniel Köhl
On Apr 17, 1:02 pm, David Harvey <[EMAIL P
On Apr 17, 2007, at 6:38 AM, DanK wrote:
>
> Nobody any idea? Or perhaps another command to mesure the time the
> algorithm used?
I'm curious; how long did the computation actually take? Are we
talking seconds? minutes? weeks?
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To
Nobody any idea? Or perhaps another command to mesure the time the
algorithm used?
Daniel Köhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more option
11 matches
Mail list logo
