On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:37 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> "Please acknowledge "National Science Foundation Grant No.
> DMS-0821725"
> in any published work that uses this computer."
>
>
>
>> > > I would like to get a graph for a paper. In return,
>> > > I am happy to share the binary with the sage c
On Jan 21, 10:27 pm, Roman Pearce wrote:
Hi Roman,
> Wow you guys must have a lot of money :)
> Thanks!
:)
Since William did not mention it, but from MOTD:
"Please acknowledge "National Science Foundation Grant No.
DMS-0821725"
in any published work that uses this computer."
> > > I wo
Wow you guys must have a lot of money :)
Thanks!
On Jan 21, 10:13 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Roman Pearce wrote:
>
> > Let me start by thanking William Stein for making this machine
> > available. I would like to run a parallel polynomial multiplication
> > ben
On Jan 21, 2009, at 3:34 PM, rjf wrote:
> On Jan 21, 11:54 am, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> I am sure that some Sage people have thought about such things, but
>>> probably not
>>> enough. Which is why I try to poke holes in some of these comments!
>>
>> Sage has thought about this--we have
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Roman Pearce wrote:
>
> Let me start by thanking William Stein for making this machine
> available. I would like to run a parallel polynomial multiplication
> benchmark on sage.math, however right now 16 cores are in use so
> performance degrades after 8 threads
Let me start by thanking William Stein for making this machine
available. I would like to run a parallel polynomial multiplication
benchmark on sage.math, however right now 16 cores are in use so
performance degrades after 8 threads (the program does not handle
heavy multitasking well). Here are
Yeah, everything seems to work except the dev map for me.
-Marshall
On Jan 21, 6:56 pm, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could people try out
>
> http://boxen.math.washington.edu:8080/
>
> It is a virtual machine that just serves up a copy of sagemath.org.
>
> --
> William Stein
> Associate Profe
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 at 04:56PM -0800, William Stein wrote:
> Could people try out
>
> http://boxen.math.washington.edu:8080/
>
> It is a virtual machine that just serves up a copy of sagemath.org.
Seems to work fine. I clicked around and all the pages I tried loaded.
Dan
--
--- Dan Drake
--
Seems to work fine, right up to crashing my ancient X.3 version of
Safari when I get to the developer map (normal behavior!).
Incidentally, it points out the Google Maps key is registered to a
different website (presumably sagemath.org), for what that's worth.
- kcrisman
--~--~-~--~~--
I had a long rationale for why I am interested in knowing the status
of the Windows port, but upon reading it I realized the biggest reason
is sheer curiosity, so I'll just ask. The relevant wiki pages and
Google group don't give much inkling, but I'll assume for the sake of
argument that actual
Hi,
Could people try out
http://boxen.math.washington.edu:8080/
It is a virtual machine that just serves up a copy of sagemath.org.
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to
On Jan 21, 11:54 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> > I am sure that some Sage people have thought about such things, but
> > probably not
> > enough. Which is why I try to poke holes in some of these comments!
>
> Sage has thought about this--we have models for both:
>
> RDF -- The real double "f
Just as well I didn't take the piss out of the paper hey!! :-)
Bill.
On 21 Jan, 21:30, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Bill Hart
> wrote:
>
> > Ha, yep, stupid of me not to check the name of the person posting to
> > the list! Thanks for the nice paper by the way. :-)
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> Ha, yep, stupid of me not to check the name of the person posting to
> the list! Thanks for the nice paper by the way. :-)
Haha, that made my day. :)
Ondrej
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send e
Ha, yep, stupid of me not to check the name of the person posting to
the list! Thanks for the nice paper by the way. :-)
I now see why heuristic gcd is inefficient for multivariable
polynomials. This seems to be a feature of multivariable algorithms. I
recently thought about using Kronecker subst
Univariate polynomial GCD is very different from multivariate
polynomial GCD.
I know the heuristic gcd algorithm and the fact that for univariate
polynomials, if you take z large enough (the bound is related to the
resultant of the polynomials), you can not have a false positive,
hence you don't n
I should point out the paper linked is *NOT* my paper.
Bill.
On 21 Jan, 20:03, Bill Hart wrote:
> I worked through this problem in detail with univariate polynomial gcd
> recently. It proved to be very difficult to beat Magma, though on the
> whole I did in the end:
>
> http://sage.math.washing
I worked through this problem in detail with univariate polynomial gcd
recently. It proved to be very difficult to beat Magma, though on the
whole I did in the end:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/flint-trunk/graphing/gcd19.png
(Blue points are where I win, red where Magma wins - but
On Jan 21, 2009, at 9:19 AM, rjf wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2:44 am, Harald Schilly wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 6:21 am, rjf wrote:
>>
>>> In my experience, people doing scientific calculations for a living
>>> will not tolerate a language implementation X whose programs are
>>> substantially slower than equ
On Jan 21, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Craig Citro wrote:
>
> I'm glad this line of questioning was brought up -- I'll try to blame
> it on tiredness, but I honestly didn't even notice above that my
> answers for P[-1] and P[-1:] were wildly inconsistent.
>
>>> Slices should return lists, and single indice
On Jan 21, 2:44 am, Harald Schilly wrote:
> On Jan 21, 6:21 am, rjf wrote:
>
> > In my experience, people doing scientific calculations for a living
> > will not tolerate a language implementation X whose programs are
> > substantially slower than equivalent ones in a language implementation
>
I'm glad this line of questioning was brought up -- I'll try to blame
it on tiredness, but I honestly didn't even notice above that my
answers for P[-1] and P[-1:] were wildly inconsistent.
>> Slices should return lists, and single indices should return a value in
>> the coefficient ring.
>
> +1,
> Could you be more specific about the function you wrote and how you
> tried to access it?
Oh yes, I define the function weil_pairing in the class
EllipticCurvePoint_finite_field like this
class EllipticCurvePoint_finite_field(EllipticCurvePoint_field):
...
def weil_pairing(self, Q, n,
On Jan 21, 4:49 pm, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> Here are my answers:
>
> > P[-1] = 0
>
> 0
>
> > P[-1:] = 1+x^2+x^3+x^4+x^5
>
> [0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
>
> > P[:-1] = 0
>
> []
>
> Slices should return lists, and single indices should return a value in
> the coefficient ring.
+1, lists are even better
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:37:11 -0800 (PST)
YannLC wrote:
>
> to be exhaustive, note that
> P[-1:] = [ P[-1], P[0], P[1], P[2]... P[degree(P)] ]
> is also an option, which correspond to the above results, but then I
> think that P[:-1] should be 0
I think the slicing operators on polynomials shou
to be exhaustive, note that
P[-1:] = [ P[-1], P[0], P[1], P[2]... P[degree(P)] ]
is also an option, which correspond to the above results, but then I
think that P[:-1] should be 0
and what if P is a power series where x^(-1) can appear...
My choice would be to forget about the Python idiom "nega
On Jan 21, 3:49 pm, Craig Citro wrote:
> I agree, P[-1:] should be x^5.
then a trac ticket should be opened:
--
| Sage Version 3.2.3, Release Date: 2009-01-05 |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license()
> But why the -1 in P[-1:] should mean something different than the -1
> in P[:-1] ?
> My answer, according to the Python idion "range(*s.indices(size))"
> would be
>
> P[-1:] = x^5
>
Ah, that's because I didn't read this very carefully at all. :) Sorry
about that.
I agree, P[-1:] should be x^5.
Unfortunately, not before the end of february , but I would be very
happy if someone else do it ;)
William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:58 AM, YannLC wrote:
> >
> > Is someone working on using NTL to handle GF(p^e)[X] ?
>
> Nobody is working on that. It's still generic code:
>
> s
On Jan 21, 2:24 pm, Craig Citro wrote:
> > More generally, if P is a polynomial (givaro, NTL, generic, pari or
> > other...) let's say P=1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4+x^5 what should be the result
> > of:
>
> > P[-1] ?
>
> 0
I agree, and it seems ok.
> > P[-1:] ?
>
> 1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4+x^5
>
> > P[:-1] ?
>
> 1
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:58 AM, YannLC wrote:
>
> Is someone working on using NTL to handle GF(p^e)[X] ?
Nobody is working on that. It's still generic code:
sage: type(GF(9,'a')['x'].0)
Do you want to work on it?
William
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to t
> More generally, if P is a polynomial (givaro, NTL, generic, pari or
> other...) let's say P=1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4+x^5 what should be the result
> of:
>
> P[-1] ?
0
> P[-1:] ?
1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4+x^5
> P[:-1] ?
1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4
Getting list slicing right can be frustrating. Here's an important
Python idi
More generally, if P is a polynomial (givaro, NTL, generic, pari or
other...) let's say P=1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4+x^5 what should be the result
of:
P[-1] ?
P[-1:] ?
P[:-1] ?
(answer before testing please...)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage
It seems to me that slicing for polynomials should return a
polynomial. Before working on ticket
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4941,
I'd like to have your opinion...
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
mabshoff wrote:
>
> ./sage -upgrade
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.3/sage-3.3.alpha0/
>
I upgraded from sage 3.2.3 using the above command and it looks like the
new spkgs did not get installed. Here is the part of the log that I
think is relevant:
I'm no
Is someone working on using NTL to handle GF(p^e)[X] ?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
On Jan 21, 6:21 am, rjf wrote:
> In my experience, people doing scientific calculations for a living
> will not tolerate a language implementation X whose programs are
> substantially slower than equivalent ones in a language implementation
> Y.
I don't know any details, but I think there are va
I come back to the topic of multivariate GCD which was discussed last
year (http://groups.google.de/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/
bc807fe1db5c8a9c/dafa6cd02b060c2f?lnk=gst&q=maxima+gcd#). During the
last month, I have worked on speed improvements on giac gcd algorithm
so that giac modular
38 matches
Mail list logo
