I've been looking through the methods for ZZ with a view to doing a
Magma/Sage comparison for marketing purposes. I've been noticing a few
issues as I go. There's going to be lots of these, so I think I should
give my list in small blocks. I can file trac tickets for them once
someone verifies
Funny, I must be receiving a lot fewer adds than everybody else. If I
type sagemath into Google, I get no adds whatsoever, if I type sage
math I get one add saying:
Sage Math
Looking for Sage Math? Find almost everything on eBay!
As expected, when I click on the link, Ebay returns 0 items.
On Apr 7, 11:43 pm, Stan Schymanski schym...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Stan,
Funny, I must be receiving a lot fewer adds than everybody else. If I
type sagemath into Google, I get no adds whatsoever, if I type sage
math I get one add saying:
Sage Math
Looking for Sage Math? Find almost
Yeah, the divisors function otherwise kicks proverbial:
Here in Sage (excuse my rubbish python):
def random(n):
a = ZZ.random_element(n)
return a
def z_divisors_test(m):
for j in range(0, m) :
n = random(10)
z = 1
c = 1
for i in range(0, n):
I mean half the memory that Sage uses, not half the memory of the
machine.
Bill.
On 8 Apr, 09:21, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Yeah, the divisors function otherwise kicks proverbial:
Here in Sage (excuse my rubbish python):
def random(n):
a = ZZ.random_element(n)
Here's some timings for exact_log:
In Sage:
def random(n):
a = ZZ.random_element(n)
return a
def z_exact_log_test(m, n, k):
for i in range(0, m) :
a = random(n) + 2
b = random(k)
c = a^b
d = c.exact_log(a)
if b != d:
print Error,
Surely it would be worth testing self.gcd(m)==m early on in the
exact_log function, i.e. that m divides self? I may be naive but I
would implement this by testing m|a, if so dividing a by m, and
continuing. The current method describes itself as extremely stupid
code but it still trying to be
This is David Harvey trying to write stupid code, so in ordinary
person terms that translates as pretty smart.
Bill.
On 8 Apr, 10:03, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely it would be worth testing self.gcd(m)==m early on in the
exact_log function, i.e. that m divides self? I may
On 04/06/09 17:26, François Bissey wrote:
I was toying with the ebuild on Gentoo the other day and there
we haven't been able to get rid of the dependency on wxpython
although I haven't checked the command line version (was trying
The mayavi2 command line application will always require a UI
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 02:17:48 am Bill Hart wrote:
* n.bits takes much longer than n.binary(), but the latter needs to
compute the former first!!!
This is sage types and lack of C-level optimization killing your performance.
The binary method does it's work using gmp (mpir, I guess
On Apr 8, 7:43 am, Stan Schymanski schym...@gmail.com wrote:
Funny, I must be receiving a lot fewer adds than everybody else. If I
type sagemath into Google, I get no adds whatsoever, if I type sage
math I get one add saying:
There is almost certainly a random element to the ads you see.
Two more issues for ZZ:
Duplicate methods:
n.prime_factors and n.prime_divisors do precisely the same thing and
have the same docstring, even down to one of the docstrings having
examples for the wrong function.
Missing methods:
n.number_of_divisors (note one does not need to compute the
2009/4/8 Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com:
Two more issues for ZZ:
Duplicate methods:
n.prime_factors and n.prime_divisors do precisely the same thing and
have the same docstring, even down to one of the docstrings having
examples for the wrong function.
Somewhere in
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
Hi,
I will be happy to hear any issues that you may find
in it, before I open a ticket for this enhancement.
I've only been marginally following this issue (thanks for all your
work on it BTW) but
Alfredo,
How are you?
Have you had some time to check out the iso image?
May I try some changes based on your distro? In that
case it may take about a week or so.
Greetings,
Lucio.
On 24 mar, 22:02, Lucio Lastra luciolas...@gmail.com wrote:
Alfredo,
I'm as glad as you to work together to
Update:
my friend took down the ISO image and its parts from
his blog.
All it remains are the instructions to build it posted here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/4cfbbc60579d2e74#
Hope you downloaded it or someone you know did.
Greetings,
Lucio.
On 8 abr,
* n.db (doesn't give an example)
I propose removing the db method. It stands for database, and was
something I put in I think way before sage-1.0. I have never used it,
and I don't know of anybody else who has, and can't imagine it even
works.
If nobody responds that they have used it, I
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:29 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
* n.db (doesn't give an example)
I propose removing the db method. It stands for database, and was
something I put in I think way before sage-1.0. I have never used it,
and I don't know of anybody else who has, and can't
Missing methods:
* n.euler_phi
This exists but not as n.euler_phi, in rings/arith.py, so you could
probably just put in a call to that - or move some of that code to ZZ
if it belongs there, while leaving the direct call euler_phi(7) and
plotting available? A lot of the things in
Hello Everybody,
Is there any document that compares Matlab, Mathematica and Sage (Plus all
the contributing codes, in example Maxima, etc.) functions, properties,
toolboxes?
In example,
Matlab Mathematica Sage Platform
NewtonMethod Yes Yes
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:11 PM, ahmet alper parker aapar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Everybody,
Is there any document that compares Matlab, Mathematica and Sage (Plus all
the contributing codes, in example Maxima, etc.) functions, properties,
toolboxes?
In example,
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:11 PM, ahmet alper parker aapar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Everybody,
Is there any document that compares Matlab, Mathematica and Sage (Plus all
the contributing codes, in example Maxima, etc.)
Hi Lucio,
I have not been able to test the image, sorry. I will try to test this weekend.
Today I saw this interesting project:
http://xpud.org/
Looks ideal for a sage/notebook only interface, but I have not tried yet.
Regards,
Alfredo
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for the quick replies!
I just upgraded to the binary version 3.2.3 (from what I've seen so
far, 3.4 is not yet available for intel atom cpus) and I'm still
getting the error mentioned above. Anywhere I could find a version
compiled for atom perhaps?
Built from source and passes all tests with sage -t with 64-bit
Kubuntu 8.10 on Intel dual core.
Rob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
25 matches
Mail list logo
