[sage-devel] sage-2.2
Hi, I'm attempting to get SAGE-2.2 ready for release today. The list of things that need to be done is given here: http://sage.math.washington.edu:9002/sage_trac/milestone/sage-2.2 If anybody is interested in helping out, let me know. Unfortunately, not too much of the work can be parallelized though. I'll be at #sage-dev on irc.freenode.net, and if you're local to UW, in my office, all day. -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] out of date versions in 2.1.4
Is this the right mail list? or is the bug tracker wiki better? Too many options leads to too-many-options-itis. packages in 2.1.4 have been superceeded: libpng-1.2-8.p0.spkg is out of date libpng-1.2.16 see http://libpng.org/pub/png/pngcode.html bzip 1.0.3 now bzip 1.0.4 http://bzip.org gdGD-2.0.34 has been released http://www.libgd.org/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: out of date versions in 2.1.4
On 2/26/07, carl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this the right mail list? or is the bug tracker wiki better? Too many options leads to too-many-options-itis. packages in 2.1.4 have been superceeded: libpng-1.2-8.p0.spkg is out of date libpng-1.2.16 see http://libpng.org/pub/png/pngcode.html Thanks for the pointer! I was hoping somebody would go down the list and let me know what was out of date. bzip 1.0.3 now bzip 1.0.4 http://bzip.org I updated this a few hours ago. gdGD-2.0.34 has been released http://www.libgd.org/ Thanks. William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: sage-2.2
William, How's this coming? I'm almost done with inline functions and cdef int a = 5 in SageX, and would like to see them in this release (so I can start using them in my code). - Robert On Feb 26, 2007, at 9:07 AM, William Stein wrote: Hi, I'm attempting to get SAGE-2.2 ready for release today. The list of things that need to be done is given here: http://sage.math.washington.edu:9002/sage_trac/milestone/sage-2.2 If anybody is interested in helping out, let me know. Unfortunately, not too much of the work can be parallelized though. I'll be at #sage-dev on irc.freenode.net, and if you're local to UW, in my office, all day. -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: sage-2.2
On 2/26/07, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How's this coming? I'm almost done with inline functions and cdef int a = 5 in SageX, and would like to see them in this release (so I can start using them in my code). Progress is steady. However, I will wait until tomorrow night to make the official release of 2.2. I'll hopefully make an alpha release sometime tonight, which people can build and test out. Martin just gave me a tour of the documented fast integer creation sagex code. Very very neat. William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] quad double timings and accuracy
Here are some timings of quaddouble vs mpfr. All test were ran on
sage.math. In short: quaddouble is faster than M=mpfr at 212 bits of
precision on all functions special, except on atanh() and asinh().
The format is as follows:
{{{
function:
quaddouble time
mprf time
}}}
Here are the timings:
cos:
0.0015869140625
0.00158500671387
sin:
0.00154900550842
0.00201201438904
tan:
0.00160002708435
0.00221610069275
acos
0.0053539276123
0.00785398483276
asin
0.00526189804077
0.00740694999695
atan
0.00495600700378
0.00740694999695
cosh
0.00159883499146
0.00189304351807
sinh
0.00158905982971
0.00194907188416
tanh
0.00168299674988
0.00202894210815
acosh
0.000118970870972
0.00012993812561
asinh
0.00462889671326
0.00277781486511
atanh
0.0044469833374
0.00309801101685
#
How accurate are these results? The error is quite small and more
accurate than computing with ieee doubles (most of the time, about 4
orders of magnitude). Here:
-- mpfr vs qd is the absolute error between a quad double and mpfr
real, and
-- mpfr vs rd is the absolute error in between a real double and
mpfr real:
cos:
mpfr vs qd: 5.4180459105735642433E-17
mpfr vs rd: 3.57935903139e-13
sin:
mpfr vs qd : 4.9262450620608075647E-17
mpfr vs rd :4.22384349719e-13
tan:
mpfr vs qd : 1.0996009735470526760E-16
mpfr vs rd : 1.37401201528e-12
acos:
mpfr vs qd : 1.0587913940429450042E-16
mpfr vs rd : 1.95518601309e-12
asin:
mpfr vs qd : 8.8793698896573320837E-17
mpfr vs rd : 1.95532479097e-12
atan:
mpfr vs qd : 4.2348407244178416828E-17
mpfr vs rd : 4.09228206877e-13
cosh:
mpfr vs qd : 1.1001972366209892607E-16
mpfr vs rd : 4.91606755304e-13
sinh:
mpfr vs qd : 7.7307263905133232438E-17
mpfr vs rd : 6.54809539924e-13
tanh:
mpfr vs qd : 5.0901691104837936913E-17
mpfr vs rd : 4.08617584213e-13
cosh:
mpfr vs qd NAN
mpfr vs rd nan
sinh:
mpfr vs qd : 5.0731042379144584142E-17
mpfr vs rd : 4.23105994685e-13
tanh:
mpfr vs qd : 1.9007614867237325552E-16
mpfr vs rd : 8.84181616811e-12
##
In conclusion:
In most cases it is faster to compute with quad double reals instead
of using mpfr reals at 212 bits. In all cases quad doubles are more
accurate than simple ieee doubles.
didier
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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/
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: quad double timings and accuracy
Shouldn't the error on a quad double be way smaller than this? I'm not sure what specific numbers you're operating on, but if your answers are on the order of 10^0, then shouldn't you have around 63 decimal digits of accuracy, rather than just 4 more orders of magnitude? Wouldn't an error of 1e-17 be like using mpfr with ~60+ bits? I guess what I'd like to see to understand this better is the absolute magnitude of cos(1) between rdf, qr, mpfr(212), and mpfr(1000). On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:07 PM, didier deshommes wrote: How accurate are these results? The error is quite small and more accurate than computing with ieee doubles (most of the time, about 4 orders of magnitude). Here: -- mpfr vs qd is the absolute error between a quad double and mpfr real, and -- mpfr vs rd is the absolute error in between a real double and mpfr real: cos: mpfr vs qd: 5.4180459105735642433E-17 mpfr vs rd: 3.57935903139e-13 sin: mpfr vs qd : 4.9262450620608075647E-17 mpfr vs rd :4.22384349719e-13 tan: mpfr vs qd : 1.0996009735470526760E-16 mpfr vs rd : 1.37401201528e-12 acos: mpfr vs qd : 1.0587913940429450042E-16 mpfr vs rd : 1.95518601309e-12 asin: mpfr vs qd : 8.8793698896573320837E-17 mpfr vs rd : 1.95532479097e-12 atan: mpfr vs qd : 4.2348407244178416828E-17 mpfr vs rd : 4.09228206877e-13 cosh: mpfr vs qd : 1.1001972366209892607E-16 mpfr vs rd : 4.91606755304e-13 sinh: mpfr vs qd : 7.7307263905133232438E-17 mpfr vs rd : 6.54809539924e-13 tanh: mpfr vs qd : 5.0901691104837936913E-17 mpfr vs rd : 4.08617584213e-13 cosh: mpfr vs qd NAN mpfr vs rd nan sinh: mpfr vs qd : 5.0731042379144584142E-17 mpfr vs rd : 4.23105994685e-13 tanh: mpfr vs qd : 1.9007614867237325552E-16 mpfr vs rd : 8.84181616811e-12 ## In conclusion: In most cases it is faster to compute with quad double reals instead of using mpfr reals at 212 bits. In all cases quad doubles are more accurate than simple ieee doubles. didier --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
