Hi William,
Thanks for taking time to respond so promptly.
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:17 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:57 PM, MarkV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Q1) Is the focus on performing symbolic calculations in parallel, or
>> are numerically orien
The author of this
http://www.davidson.edu/math/chartier/Starwars/
project wanted code to render a 3d model of yoda for a demonstration
of rotation matrices.
A worksheet that does this can be found at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jkantor/yoda.sws
(it is large 3.5 M, it has a large at
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:57 PM, MarkV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Q1) Is the focus on performing symbolic calculations in parallel, or
> are numerically oriented calculations currently being considered?
Both are equally important and relevant to Sage.
>> Yes. But this won't happen on a grand
Hi Devs,
Firstly thanks for making the effort to get SAGE this far.
At the moment I'm a MMA user tracking its progress, and have some
'user-level' questions about SAGE's development, specifically related
to parallel calculations. I'll also indulge in some observations that
may be a little off-top
Hi Clement,
I heard you had a big smile on your face today. Well done.
Regarding your suggestion about copying into blocks, that is a very
good idea. The problem at present is that we break up into blocks
vertically, not horizontally. But we absolutely should be doing it
horizontally. The reason
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Clement Pernet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi guys,
>
> I am finally up to date with this discussion (I was being interviewed,
> and then flying when it started).
> First, congrats for the great job you have achieved. I have started to
> dive into m4ri, and I re
hi guys,
I am finally up to date with this discussion (I was being interviewed,
and then flying when it started).
First, congrats for the great job you have achieved. I have started to
dive into m4ri, and I really like the quality of the code.
I have a few remarks
* the loop unrolling techniq
Martin,
On the M4RI website you say that M4R inversion is asymptotically fast
with time complexity n^3/log_2(n), but Strassen's method has
complexity n^log2(7), which I would call asymptotically fast.
Do you just mean asymptotically faster than the classical algorithm?
By the way, I wrote some c
Yep that's exactly the same thing as what M4RM does. Thanks for the
explanation.
Bill.
On 20 May, 00:22, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can't tell exactly what GAP does. It is beautifully documented, but
> > it talks about "grease units", which is terminology I don't
> > understa
I copied example.sage to a subdirectory 'em' and start sage, attached
example and started the notebook:
sage: attach 'example.sage'
This is a simple SAGE example script.
9765625
5 * 401
[0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81]
[(0 : -1 : 1)]
37
The following should be true:
True
sage: notebook('/home
> I can't tell exactly what GAP does. It is beautifully documented, but
> it talks about "grease units", which is terminology I don't
> understand. It does look like M4RM though.
Grease is a concept for speeding up certain things using caching. For
example, suppose I have the permutation group S_
> > lines I believe, so basically unless you are doing something requiring
> > lots of wide arithmetic/logic, you aren't going to get anything more
> > out of the chip.
>
> > I look forward to seeing the new code now that you've cleaned it up.
>
> T
>
> I look forward to seeing the new code now that you've cleaned it up.
The tarball is here:
http://m4ri.sagemath.org/downloads/m4ri-20080519.alpha0.tar.gz
and the SPKG is here:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/malb/spkgs/libm4ri-20080519.p0.spkg
The SPKG needs a patch:
Ha, GAP isn't fast at everything. I just found timings for their
multiple polynomial quadratic sieve. It takes 2hr to factor a 60 digit
number. My sieve takes about 9sec. But what's a factor of 800 between
friends.
Bill.
On 19 May, 22:23, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> That's
Martin,
That's all excellent news!! So on the c2d we are caning magma. But we
should try and figure out if your magma version is optimised for c2d
or for amd64, since that will make a big difference. Is your machine
some kind of 64 bit Intel OSX machine? I don't see a specific core 2
version of M
On Monday 19 May 2008, Bill Hart wrote:
> You seemed to be getting up to 8% at points there. That's definitely
> worth it. I'll be interested to see this evening how it comes out,
> though I recommend optimising my combine3 function (which I suppose
> should now be combine8), even including it inl
On Monday 19 May 2008, Bill Hart wrote:
> You seemed to be getting up to 8% at points there. That's definitely
> worth it. I'll be interested to see this evening how it comes out,
> though I recommend optimising my combine3 function (which I suppose
> should now be combine8), even including it inl
>
> > Yep. Maybe we should just subscribe the update email to sage-announce?
> That
> > sounds like the easiest and simplest solution since no one needs to
> remember
> > to email them ;)
>
> Great idea. Please do that.
>
Done.
>
> William
>
>
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~-~--~~---
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Michael Abshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:51 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sage Devel,
>>
>> This looks like a good thing.
>
> Yep. Maybe we should just subscribe the update email to sage-announce? That
> so
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:51 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Sage Devel,
>
> This looks like a good thing.
Yep. Maybe we should just subscribe the update email to sage-announce? That
sounds like the easiest and simplest solution since no one needs to remember
to email them ;)
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:53 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Lon Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Sorry, but for the life of me I can't find where the system requirements
> are
> > for SAGE 3.0.1 binary for Mac OS X... ple
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Lon Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> Sorry, but for the life of me I can't find where the system requirements are
> for SAGE 3.0.1 binary for Mac OS X... please advise!
>
>
At least 512MB RAM, 1GB hard drive space (probably less, but...),
and OS X
Hi Sage Devel,
This looks like a good thing.
-- Forwarded message --
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Subject: MacUpdate Dev: SAGE 3.0.1 added
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: MacUpdate_Agent/1.0 by Unsanity & friends
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 19, 7:32 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
Hi Jaap,
> I was afk for quite some time (the sailing season!)
:)
> so I missed some
> of this discussion. Could not apply the patches to alpha1, only
> hg_scripts.patch('../trac_3097_scripts.patch') did work.
On
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On May 19, 6:56 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jaap Spies wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Jaap,
>
>>> pbuild builds here on Fedora 7, 32 bits with 2 cores, but
>>> make check hangs on:
>>> sage -t devel/sage/sage/dsage/tests/testdoc.py
>> With ./sage -tp 2 a lot more i
On May 19, 6:56 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jaap Spies wrote:
Hi Jaap,
> > pbuild builds here on Fedora 7, 32 bits with 2 cores, but
> > make check hangs on:
> > sage -t devel/sage/sage/dsage/tests/testdoc.py
>
> With ./sage -tp 2 a lot more is tested. Got the same failures
On May 19, 5:17 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
> Compilation was fine but sage -testall failed.
> This is on a brand new amd phenom machine running ubuntu
> hardy heron 8.04amd64:
>
> ...
> --
> The foll
Jaap Spies wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> the 3.0.2 release cycle so far has been a little slower than usual
>> and there are a couple contributing factors. While some of us are
>> waiting on the coercion rewrite to progress, others had obligations
>> with school and the end of the
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> the 3.0.2 release cycle so far has been a little slower than usual
> and there are a couple contributing factors. While some of us are
> waiting on the coercion rewrite to progress, others had obligations
> with school and the end of the semester seems to have k
Compilation was fine but sage -testall failed.
This is on a brand new amd phenom machine running ubuntu
hardy heron 8.04amd64:
...
--
The following tests failed:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/server/simple/twist.py
s
On Monday 19 May 2008, Bill Hart wrote:
> You seemed to be getting up to 8% at points there. That's definitely
> worth it. I'll be interested to see this evening how it comes out,
> though I recommend optimising my combine3 function (which I suppose
> should now be combine8), even including it inl
You seemed to be getting up to 8% at points there. That's definitely
worth it. I'll be interested to see this evening how it comes out,
though I recommend optimising my combine3 function (which I suppose
should now be combine8), even including it inline rather than have it
in a separate file.
Of
Bill,
I do get a small speed-up on the Core2Duo for SSE2 but I'm not sure it is
worth the trouble (I agree that it make the otherwise pretty looking code
ugly).
I have some timings (for an old implementation) here:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3204#comment:2
My guess is tha
I had a look at gf2x. The reason they can make use of sse is because
of the shl and shr capabilities. Doing that 128 bits at a time is more
efficient since one operation can be done instead of quite a few using
general purpose regs.
Bill.
On 19 May, 13:52, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Martin,
does your machine speed up at all with any of the SSE code? I spent
considerable time yesterday trying to optimise the combine3 function I
wrote (note: I didn't submit this improved code). Whilst I did speed
it up considerably by removing %'s and /'s and changing the function
prototype to
Hello folks,
the 3.0.2 release cycle so far has been a little slower than usual
and there are a couple contributing factors. While some of us are
waiting on the coercion rewrite to progress, others had obligations
with school and the end of the semester seems to have kept a lot
of people busy. 3.
36 matches
Mail list logo
