Dear David,
one can construct the apropriate quotient
P=QQ['a,b,x1,x2,x3']
K.=FractionField(P)
R.=K['y1,y2,y3']
I = R.ideal(y1^2 - x1^3 - a*x1 - b, y2^2 - x2^3 - a*x2 - b,
y3^2 - x3^3 - a*x3 - b)
S=quotient(R,I)
sage: S
Quotient of Multivariate Polynomial Ring in y1, y2, y3 over Fraction
Field o
Dear Carl,
I like your code; it is elegant and realy quick
but it seems that finishing your code
with Paul Zimmermann's approach
I2 = singular(I).groebner()
#print I.reduce(n12);
print singular.reduce((n12), I2)
(althout less elegant)
is a little bit faster
(0.06 -> 0.05 on my comp. :)
I want a
On Jan 14, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> Here is a more idiomatic way to do this computation in Sage. We work
> in the fraction field of a multivariate polynomial ring; this means
> that our polynomial arithmetic is handled by libSingular instead of by
> maxima, and that we can get the
On Jan 11, 3:09 pm, Paul Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was able to do the job with SAGE, but I have to confess it was not as easy
> as in Maple (however I am still more fluent in Maple):
>
> --
> | SAGE Version 2.9.3,
Paul
I was wrong, both yuor questions are rather simple
If you want to use Singular you have to give an argument which
Singular wants
and SAGE provides "somthing completly different", so the conversion is
natural
sage: type(n12)
sage: type(repr(n12))
Andrzej Chrzeszczyk
On 12 Sty, 21:57, achrz
If you dont want factor you can use
n12 = numerator((s1-s2).rational_simplify())
On 12 Sty, 16:53, achrzesz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul
> Have you noticed that your SAGE code is much faster tha MAPLE's?
> Your final questions are interesting but not easy to me
> Andrzej Chrzeszczyk
>
> On
Paul
Have you noticed that your SAGE code is much faster tha MAPLE's?
Your final questions are interesting but not easy to me
Andrzej Chrzeszczyk
On 12 Sty, 16:27, achrzesz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul
> Im impressed again. Thank you so much
> I had only a rough idea and you are realy effec
Dear Andrzej,
> Im impressed again. Thank you so much
> I had only a rough idea and you are realy effective in SAGE (too).
> This time I have no additional concrete questions
> but I'm strongly interested in your general opinion
> concerning the comparison MAPLE-SAGE (any links?)
for flo
Paul
Im impressed again. Thank you so much
I had only a rough idea and you are realy effective in SAGE (too).
This time I have no additional concrete questions
but I'm strongly interested in your general opinion
concerning the comparison MAPLE-SAGE (any links?)
Andrzej Chrzeszczyk
On 11 Sty, 23:
Dear Andrzej,
> I don't know if elegant Paul Zimmermann's MAPLE solution
> has counterpart in SAGE (I'm affraid it hasn't) but his remark on
> the Groebner bases (SINGULAR, MACAULAY2 interf?) may be essentiall.
> Does the discussion mean that I have to use the closed source
> software?
>
Thanks to John Cremona and Paul Zimmermann
I'm impressed, I didn't expect such quick response from leading
specialists
in the field. Thank you very much!
The answers were extremly interesting an concrete but I can't agree
with last John Cremona's statement:
"we have answered the original question!
Thanks Paul, I was too lazy to try that myself. Now I am puzzled by
what I remembered being possible and impossible, but never mind -- we
have answered the original question!
John
On 09/01/2008, Paul Zimmermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>John,
>
> > As far as I know you cannot check
John,
> As far as I know you cannot check associativity in this naive way.
>
> For a start, nowhere in your code do you use the equation of the
> curve. If that is (say) y^2=x^3+a*x+b, then your equation will only
> be correct modulo the relations y1^2=x1^3+a*x1+b and so on.
this is cor
As far as I know you cannot check associativity in this naive way.
For a start, nowhere in your code do you use the equation of the
curve. If that is (say) y^2=x^3+a*x+b, then your equation will only
be correct modulo the relations y1^2=x1^3+a*x1+b and so on.
However, even with that I don't thi
14 matches
Mail list logo
