Hi,
Is there a way to compute Groebner bases and varieties in parallel on
multiple processors or in a cluster?
Thanks.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PRO
On Nov 24, 12:21 am, vpv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> Is there a way to compute Groebner bases and varieties in parallel on
> multiple processors or in a cluster?
What exactly do you want to do
(a) compute the Gbasis of some ideal with different strategies and/or
programs at the s
Thanks for your reply, Michael! Please see more details about my
problem below:
Let 'e' designate a system of boolean equations. Then I have the
following code:
I=ideal(e)
G=I.groebner_basis()
I2=ideal(G)
V = I2.variety()
'e' is composed of approx. 1000 quadratic equations in approx. 500
variab
Hello,
given a matrix over CDF I would like to obtain its real and imaginary
parts.
I know how to write my own function to do this, but I was wondering if
there is one built-in. Couldn't see anything in the docs.
Many thanks,
Bill (using SAGE version 3.0.5).
--~--~-~--~~~
Hi,
when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
sage: e = x+y
sage: e.subs(x=y)
2*y
but not with Piecewise:
sage: var("h H x y")
(h, H, x, y)
sage: u = Piecewise([((0, h), x/h), ((h, H), 1)])
sage: u.subs(x=y)
---
At
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:19:55 +0100
"Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
>
> sage: e = x+y
> sage: e.subs(x=y)
> 2*y
>
> but not with Piecewise:
>
> sage: var("h H x y")
> (h, H, x, y)
> sage: u = Piecewise([((0, h), x/h), ((h,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
>
> sage: e = x+y
> sage: e.subs(x=y)
> 2*y
>
> but not with Piecewise:
>
> sage: var("h H x y")
> (h, H, x, y)
> sage: u = Piecewise([((0, h), x/h), ((h, H), 1)])
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:25 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
>>
>> sage: e = x+y
>> sage: e.subs(x=y)
>> 2*y
>>
>> but not with Piecewise:
>>
>> sa
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
>>
>> sage: e = x+y
>> sage: e.subs(x=y)
>> 2*y
>>
>> but not with Piecewise:
>>
>> s
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:15 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:25 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
>>>
>>
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:04:53 +0100
"Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> when I use regular expressions, I can
Bill wrote:
> Hello,
> given a matrix over CDF I would like to obtain its real and imaginary
> parts.
> I know how to write my own function to do this, but I was wondering if
> there is one built-in. Couldn't see anything in the docs.
I don't think there is a built-in function for it, but you ca
I'm not sure if this is a bug or just something I'm misunderstanding,
but for 2D graphics I can write code like this.
g = Graphics()
g += line( [ [-1,-1], [1,1] ] )
g.show()
But in 3D if I do either
g = Graphics()
g += sphere( (1,1,1), 2 )
g.show()
or
g = sage.plot.plot3d.base.Graphics3dGroup
I'm interested in toric varieties and calculating integral points in
polytopes. I was told that polymake was one of the polyhedral
programs around which is why I asked about SAGE compatibility.
Honestly, I haven't looked at the native polyhedra features but I will
certainly do that. There's noth
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:04:53 +0100
> "Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik <[EM
Thanks Jason,
I opted to use Re(X) = (X + X.conjugate())/2 in the end. I don't know
enough
about Python's interpreter to know whether this is more or less
efficient than
your suggestion. Thank you for the info about the new version, I shall
upgrade
soon.
Will.
On Nov 24, 3:01 pm, Jason Grout <[EM
OK, as I said I am actively adding functionality to the sage-native
stuff, so please let me know what you need. Sage also includes the
PALP package by default, which can compute interior integral points.
I have not added that functionality into my Polyhedron class but I
will; as it is there are t
This has bothered me too and I think it is a bug. I have made it trac
ticket #4604. It shouldn't be too hard to fix.
As a workaround I am currently doing something like:
g = point3d((0,0,0),opacity = 0)
which gives you an invisible point at the origin.
-M. Hampton
On Nov 24, 9:47 am, Chris
Dear Sage Team,
I know that one can doc test exceptions by
sage: stupid_code()
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
TypeError: error message RTFM
My problem: The error message will not always be the same. It is an
error raised by the Singular interface, the error message will s
On Nov 24, 11:02 am, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Sage Team,
Hi Simon,
> I know that one can doc test exceptions by
> sage: stupid_code()
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> ...
> TypeError: error message RTFM
>
> My problem: The error message will not always
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Chris Fronk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if this is a bug or just something I'm misunderstanding,
> but for 2D graphics I can write code like this.
>
> g = Graphics()
> g += line( [ [-1,-1], [1,1] ] )
> g.show()
>
> But in 3D if I do either
>
> g = G
Hi Michael,
thank you, but I am afraid it did not work.
Now, my doc test is
sage: singular('%sI'%(H.prefix))
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
TypeError: Singular error:
? ... is undefined
? error occurred in STDIN line ...: `def ...;`
and here is what the doc t
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm interested in toric varieties and calculating integral points in
> polytopes. I was told that polymake was one of the polyhedral
> programs around which is why I asked about SAGE compatibility.
> Honestly, I hav
On Nov 24, 2:04 am, vpv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> Thanks for your reply, Michael! Please see more details about my
> problem below:
>
> Let 'e' designate a system of boolean equations. Then I have the
> following code:
>
> I=ideal(e)
> G=I.groebner_basis()
> I2=ideal(G)
> V = I2.variety
I am sorry for being so stupid.
> Now, my doc test is
> sage: singular('%sI'%(H.prefix))
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> ...
> TypeError: Singular error:
> ? ... is undefined
> ? error occurred in STDIN line ...: `def ...;`
I had an analogous doc test in anothe
> Unfortunately not. I have seen Buchberger's algorithm implemented with
> parallel reduction on a shared memory system with allegedly decent
> performance with up to 8 CPUs in a shared memory system (i.e. all in
> one big box, not a cluster), but the implementation was in Java and is
> not integr
On Nov 24, 12:58 pm, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi,
> > Unfortunately not. I have seen Buchberger's algorithm implemented with
> > parallel reduction on a shared memory system with allegedly decent
> > performance with up to 8 CPUs in a shared memory system (i.e. all in
> > one
I looked but couldn't find how to create a set of linked worksheets
like the tutorial. I.e. if you look at:
http://localhost:8000/doc/live/tut/node8.html
.. you see links between the worksheets (previous up next and so on)
Is there a trick to doing this?
-- Owen
--~--~-~--~~-
Hi,
Is there a specific way to add rules (and apply them) to rewrite
expressions in Sage?
Such as, log(a)-log(b) = log(a/b)
I need this (and others) in order to properly compare the integration
results from Sage to the list of integrals I have. I'm trying to put
together a suite of integration
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there a specific way to add rules (and apply them) to rewrite
> expressions in Sage?
>
> Such as, log(a)-log(b) = log(a/b)
>
> I need this (and others) in order to properly compare the integration
> results from S
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I looked but couldn't find how to create a set of linked worksheets
> like the tutorial. I.e. if you look at:
> http://localhost:8000/doc/live/tut/node8.html
> .. you see links between the worksheets (previous up next and so on
On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there a specific way to add rules (and apply them) to rewrite
>> expressions in Sage?
>>
>> Such as, log(a)-log(b) = log(a/b)
>>
>> I need this (and o
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Is there a specific way to add rules (and apply them) to rewrite
>>> expr
On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> I can easily run timing comparisons between maxima and FriCAS, but
>> because
>> of how sympy does things (with its separate variables), I'll have
>> to run
>> them separately. Comparing maxima and FriCAS, the timings are pretty
>> close on
Hi,
I want to be able to recreate the functionalities of webMathematica on
my website, as demostrated here http://www.quickmath.com .
Will Sage do this, and if not, can you recommend some free/open source
software that will, please?
Cheers,
heebie.
--~--~-~--~~~---
On Nov 24, 6:17 pm, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
> >> I can easily run timing comparisons between maxima and FriCAS, but
> >> because
> >> of how sympy does things (with its separate variables), I'll have
> >> to run
> >> them s
On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:21 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> We have a timeit doctest framework that is supposed to hunt for speed
> regressions. It is merged in 3.2, but we need infrastructure to
> compare the output from several runs.
>
> But I guess you are asking if timeit('foo') could return the time so
heebie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to be able to recreate the functionalities of webMathematica on
> my website, as demostrated here http://www.quickmath.com .
Sage has a much more powerful, full online notebook interface. See
http://www.sagenb.org to sign up for a free account to try it out.
If
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know I could parse the output, but I thought someone might have done
> it and it sounds like the timeit doctest framework might do it.
>
> Where can I find this in the source so I can see how it is doing it?
You can do this
On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
> You can do this in 3.2:
>
> sage: s = timeit.eval("2+3")
> sage: s
> 625 loops, best of 3: 942 ns per loop
> sage: s.stats
> (625, 3, 3, 942.230224609375, 'ns')
>
> The code is in sage/misc/sage_timeit.py and sage/misc/
> sage_timeit_class.py.
On Nov 24, 7:03 pm, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
>
>
> > You can do this in 3.2:
>
> > sage: s = timeit.eval("2+3")
> > sage: s
> > 625 loops, best of 3: 942 ns per loop
> > sage: s.stats
> > (625, 3, 3, 942.230224609375, 'ns')
>
> > Th
On Nov 24, 2008, at 10:07 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> You should consider creating one or a couple large files with the
> integrals for doctesting and stuff them into $SAGE_ROOT/devel/tests.
> Hopefully it can be arranged to feed the input into Maxima/Axiom/
> Maple/
> MMA/sympy and so on and compar
Hi,
If I have the following example Sage code,
var('x,a,b')
# Test 1
f1 = 1/(a*x+b)
aa = f1.integrate(x)
bb = 1/a*log(a*x+b)
aa_cmp = bb-aa # Should be zero
sage_time_f1 = timeit.eval('f1.integrate(x)')
friCAS_time_f1 = timeit.eval('axiom.integrate(f1,x)')
How do I write it as a test?
The code
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>>> I can easily run timing comparisons between maxima and FriCAS, but
>>> because
>>> of how sympy does things (with its separate variables), I'll have
>>> to run
>>> t
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> If I have the following example Sage code,
>
> var('x,a,b')
> # Test 1
> f1 = 1/(a*x+b)
> aa = f1.integrate(x)
> bb = 1/a*log(a*x+b)
> aa_cmp = bb-aa # Should be zero
> sage_time_f1 = timeit.eval('f1.integrate(x)')
>
Hi
When I call,
world + sum([point3d(v, color='red') for v in city_coords]) + sum
([point3d(v, size=2, color='green') for v in mydots])
from within a file it does not work. I do not get an error message, it
is just that the Jmol 3D image viewer never appears.
That line of code call Jmol only wh
On Nov 24, 2008, at 11:54 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If I have the following example Sage code,
>>
>> var('x,a,b')
>> # Test 1
>> f1 = 1/(a*x+b)
>> aa = f1.integrate(x)
>> bb = 1/a*log(a*x+b)
>> aa_cmp =
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:00 PM, acardh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> When I call,
>
> world + sum([point3d(v, color='red') for v in city_coords]) + sum
> ([point3d(v, size=2, color='green') for v in mydots])
>
> from within a file it does not work. I do not get an error message, it
> is j
No worries, I mainly wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something.
On Nov 24, 6:47 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I looked but couldn't find how to create a set of linked worksheets
> > like the tutorial. I.
Tim Lahey wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2008, at 11:54 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> If I have the following example Sage code,
>>>
>>> var('x,a,b')
>>> # Test 1
>>> f1 = 1/(a*x+b)
>>> aa = f1.integrate(x)
>>> bb
Jason Grout wrote:
>
> You could probably use the "sympyify" command:
Sorry, as the examples illustrated, it's "sympify". I have such a hard
time remembering how to spell that, and even if I remember, I always
have a hard time typing it.
-Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~
On Nov 25, 2008, at 12:33 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> sage: import sympy
> sage: var('x,a,b')
> (x, a, b)
> sage: f1=1/(a*x+b)
> sage: sympy.integrate(sympy.sympify(f1),sympy.sympify(x))
> 1/a*log(b + a*x)
> sage: sympy_integrate = lambda f,x: sympy.integrate(sympy.sympify(f),
> sympy.sympify(x))
Tim Lahey wrote:
>
> On Nov 25, 2008, at 12:33 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
>> sage: import sympy
>> sage: var('x,a,b')
>> (x, a, b)
>> sage: f1=1/(a*x+b)
>> sage: sympy.integrate(sympy.sympify(f1),sympy.sympify(x))
>> 1/a*log(b + a*x)
>> sage: sympy_integrate = lambda f,x: sympy.integrate(sympy.sympif
I see that the ticket
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4533
has been closed. Thank you for the effort, now divisors in SAGE is
much faster!! However, the one that packed in SAGE 3.2 is still about
3 times slower than that in PARI. I wonder if all the improvements
have been implemented i
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:43 PM, pong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I see that the ticket
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4533
>
> has been closed. Thank you for the effort, now divisors in SAGE is
> much faster!! However, the one that packed in SAGE 3.2 is still about
> 3 times sl
Oh really.
Now I realized why I had in my mind that SAGE was much slower---the
test what based on a more complicated function instead of just
divisors.
Looking forward to SAGE 3.2.1 then.
On Nov 24, 11:05 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:43 PM, pong <[
56 matches
Mail list logo
