On Sep 4, 4:31 am, "John Voight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> Thanks, that was fast! If I may ask, what was the problem? Must've
> been something not particularly exciting...
>
> Double precision is more than sufficient for my purposes--even floats
> (!) are fine, I just need fast and reasonably accurate.
>
> Craig also whipped up a patch to include those two functions from
> Pari--so let's get that into the next release as well.
>
it is already in trac at http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/584 and
tagged for 2.8.4. Since it is independent of the other code it will go
in very soon.
Cheers,
Michael
> Unfortunately, even after the week's optimizations, my number field
> enumeration algorithm runs (on meccah) almost 20 times slower on SAGE
> than on Magma (181s vs. 9s)--and with identical verbose output. I
> just don't see how there can be that much of a difference! But then
> again, this was even after I implemented a rather silly shortcut in
> Cython to evaluate a polynomial, treated as an array to avoid coercion
> overhead which runs almost 3 times as fast as commands like
> numpy.poly1d(cfs)(x), and a Newton method which also in many cases
> beat the root finding in numpy--but only because of overhead costs.
> Note that these trial runs use very little of the number field
> machinery: the bottleneck is still real arithmetic and whatever other
> overhead is sneaking in... Very frustrating!
>
> Yours,
>
> John Voight
> Assistant Professor of Mathematics
> University of Vermont
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]://www.cems.uvm.edu/~voight/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
