On Oct 25, 3:46 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, > (1) Sage also does FFT via the GSL. I guess they didn't try that, > but I would imaginge they would be fast since they are in C. The Numpy FFT is fairly quick and AFAIK we only build a subset of the possible libraries there. The one we ship IIRC only is really fast when the input consists of 2^n values. > (2) I'm not sure what a toolbox actually *is*. Something like an > optional package with a nice gui interface? > > (3) Related to this thread, I just got an email from Cesar (from > Mexico, the grad > student working on the RingCode class). He was at a big math > meeting and told people one reason why he prefers Sage over Matlab > is because in Matlab (and I quote from Cesar): > > "In MatLab: > > var1 = 2^10000000 > var2 = 2^10000000 + 1 > var1 == var2 > > The result of the last line will be True!!!!" Yep, the bane of floating points. That is why Matlab has a symbolic toolbox which I am sure isn't exactly cheap. It certainly isn't part of the default config. > Also Cesar says Matlab will often invert without warning a singular > matrix. > > So, I think it would be cool if the reviewer also changed that the > programs worked *correctly*. Apologies for the scarcasm:-) Well, all the reviewer did in case of the SVD benchmark is to measure the speed of the BLAS linked against Lapack since all projects use Lapack for SVD. So that part of the review is completely pointless and shows that the reviewer seemingly doesn't know a whole lot about numerical software :) Cheers, Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
