On Apr 27, 9:58 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I have wrapped up a t2.math binary of Sage 4.4. You can find it under
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mvngu/t2.math-bin/
There is also a somewhat smaller one in
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-4.4/
This one was pr
On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:13 PM, William Stein wrote:
Hi Sage-Devel,
One of the goals for Sage-5.0 is 90% doctest coverage. We need about
1500 new tests to get written to reach this goal.
rings:
complex_field.py: 46% (13 of 28)
complex_interval.pyx: 51% (25 of 49)
I remember adding some unre
and free_module_element.pyx is now #8789
On Tuesday, April 27, 2010, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
>> mpmath/ext_main.pyx: 0% (0 of 102)
>
> This is now ticket #8791:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8791
>
> --
> R
Hi folks,
I have wrapped up a t2.math binary of Sage 4.4. You can find it under
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mvngu/t2.math-bin/
To produce this binary, I built Sage 4.4 from scratch (no parallel
build). Once the build finished, I tar gzip'd the whole of SAGE_ROOT.
I didn't even use the "
Hi William,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM, William Stein wrote:
> mpmath/ext_main.pyx: 0% (0 of 102)
This is now ticket #8791:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8791
--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
Hi William,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM, William Stein wrote:
> logic:
> logic.py: 16% (3 of 18)
This is now ticket #8790:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8790
--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe f
Hi Sage-Devel,
One of the goals for Sage-5.0 is 90% doctest coverage. We need about
1500 new tests to get written to reach this goal.
I just went through the coverage output on the library, and found the
following low hanging fruit and "egregiously badly" doctested files
(see below). If you
You can access the code here:
http://selmer.warwick.ac.uk/gitweb/flint2.git?a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/FHT
You need the latest MPIR release candidate, the latest MPFR and either
an x86 or x86_64 machine to run it.
set the liib and include paths in the top level makefile, set the
LD_LIBRARY_PATH's i
Well I got the polynomial convolution working with the Fast Hartley
Transform. It seems to pass my primitive test code.
As an example of a first timing, 1000 iterations of multiplying
polynomials of length 512 with 100 floating point bits precision per
coefficient takes 17s.
I think I can make it
Certainly if *all* your memory accesses take time log n then you are
in trouble. But if your algorithm is cache friendly, it should take
time O(n log n) to access memory overall.
So I agree with what you say. Your implementation must be cache
friendly.
Bill.
On Apr 28, 12:11 am, Tim Daly wrote:
Bill Hart wrote:
On Apr 27, 8:55 pm, rjf wrote:
Oh, just another note.
There are people who have made their whole careers on devising
asymptotically fast algorithms
which have never been implemented, or (if they have been implemented)
are not fast because
their overly-simplified analysis
Well, I coded up a mini mpfr_poly module and Fast Hartley Transform in
flint2 using mpfr's as coefficients.
It's hard to know if it is doing the right thing, there's no test code
yet. But it compiles and doesn't segfault. :-)
A little bit more work required to turn it into a convolution, but as
f
On Apr 27, 1:06 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> John Palmieri wrote:
> > This release candidate for Sage 4.4 closed 19 tickets (on top of
> > 4.4.alpha1). On trac, these tickets were labeled as "merged into
> > 4.4.alpha2", but then I decided that alpha2 should be the same as rc0.
>
> I built 4.4.
>
> > 2.
> > Communicate that path openly // possibly prominently in the
> > documentation --- so everybody "has been warned".
>
> *Document* this issue prominently, at least in the download &
> installation guides.
Could you open up a ticket for this, if you don't mind?
> 3rd-party provided bdi
On Apr 27, 8:55 pm, rjf wrote:
> Oh, just another note.
>
> There are people who have made their whole careers on devising
> asymptotically fast algorithms
> which have never been implemented, or (if they have been implemented)
> are not fast because
> their overly-simplified analysis does not f
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> OK, thanks. That means I need to make some changes to flint1. I will
> try to do this before Sage 5 comes out. flint2 will be immune and
> won't be out till at least July I have decided.
See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8771
Willi
John Palmieri wrote:
This release candidate for Sage 4.4 closed 19 tickets (on top of
4.4.alpha1). On trac, these tickets were labeled as "merged into
4.4.alpha2", but then I decided that alpha2 should be the same as rc0.
Source tarball:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-4.4.rc
Oh, just another note.
There are people who have made their whole careers on devising
asymptotically fast algorithms
which have never been implemented, or (if they have been implemented)
are not fast because
their overly-simplified analysis does not fit the currently available
computer efficiency
On Apr 27, 8:43 am, Bill Hart wrote:
> That's called Kronecker Substitution (or Segmentation), not Fateman
> mulitplication.
.. so you can imagine MY confusion..
Since it is an algorithm for multiplying polynomials over ZZ, it
doesn't seem relevant.
It's probably not fair to blame Kronecker
Sorry, looks like I have messed up with copying/moving files.
Andrey
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/gro
OK, thanks. That means I need to make some changes to flint1. I will
try to do this before Sage 5 comes out. flint2 will be immune and
won't be out till at least July I have decided.
Bill.
On Apr 27, 6:58 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Bill Hart
> wrote:
> > Hi Wil
The source for 4.4 is available on sagemath.org and upgrade from
4.4rc0 also finds the new version. However, the upgrade didn't finish
successfully and trying to build from scratch on sage.math I get
abort: unresolved merge conflicts (see hg res
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> What are the major differences in GCC 4.5.0 which seem to be affecting
> Sage?
(1) New bug(s) in GCC-4.5.0, especially optimization related issues :-)
(2) Tighter adherence to C++ standards.
> Is there something new that we sho
On Apr 27, 10:46 am, Robert Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Andrey Novoseltsev
> wrote:
> > sage: loads(X.dumps()) == X
> > File "sage_object.pyx", line 915, in
> > sage.structure.sage_object.loads (sage/structure/sage_object.c:9175)
> > TypeError: __new__() takes exa
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> sage: loads(X.dumps()) == X
> File "sage_object.pyx", line 915, in
> sage.structure.sage_object.loads (sage/structure/sage_object.c:9175)
> TypeError: __new__() takes exactly 4 arguments (1 given)
> ***
Hello,
As a follow-up to http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8609, I
tried to switch scheme homsets to new Parent. As I understand, since
SchemeHomset_generic in schemes/generic/homset.py inherits from
HomsetWithBase which inherits from new Parent, everything should
already be fine. So I tri
Hi William,
What are the major differences in GCC 4.5.0 which seem to be affecting
Sage? Is there something new that we should be aware of when writing
code for this compiler?
Bill.
On Apr 26, 9:15 pm, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Main point of this email: if anybody else is trying to port Sa
Also see pages 252 and following of Polynomial and Matrix
Computations, Volume 1 by Dario Bini and Victor Pan, which seems to
answer your question in detail.
Bill.
On Apr 27, 4:57 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> Numerical stability is not something I have any experience with. I am
> not sure if is is equ
On Apr 27, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 04/26/2010 10:54 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I should comment on this, as I wrote the code and comments in
question.
There actually is a fair amount of research out there on stable
multiplication of polynomials over the real numbers, but (if
Numerical stability is not something I have any experience with. I am
not sure if is is equivalent in some sense to the loss of precision
which occurs when doing FFT arithmetic using a floating point FFT.
The issue seems to be accumulation of "numerical noise". There are
proven bounds on how many
That's called Kronecker Substitution (or Segmentation), not Fateman
mulitplication.
On Apr 27, 2:38 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 04/27/2010 12:38 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > RJF asks me to forward this, since it bounced for him, evidently.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -- Forwarded mess
Why need to rebuild ecl package?
Stephen
On Apr 27, 12:22 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Stephen Loo wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I have upgraded source from 4.3.5 under Mac OS X 10.6.3 x86-64. And
> > output error message below
>
> Try forcing a rebuild of ecl with
>
>
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
kcrisman wrote:
> On Apr 26, 9:16 pm, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > kcrisman wrote:
> > > On Apr 26, 4:09 pm, John Cremona wrote:
> > > > This is certainly a bug:
> >
> > > > sage: a = sqrt(-3)
> > > > sage: a
On Apr 26, 9:16 pm, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> kcrisman wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 4:09 pm, John Cremona wrote:
> > > This is certainly a bug:
>
> > > sage: a = sqrt(-3)
> > > sage: a
> > > sqrt(-3)
> > > sage: a.conjugate()
> > > sqrt(-3)
>
> > > sa
To summarize:
What is norm for number theorists, is pathology to the ordinary folks!
:-)
On Apr 27, 8:25 pm, Johan Grönqvist wrote:
> 2010-04-27 13:29, Gonzalo Tornaria skrev:
>
> > 2010/4/27 Johan Grönqvist:
> >> Those did not even mention that
> >> there is an alternative definition of norm u
On 04/26/2010 10:54 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I should comment on this, as I wrote the code and comments in question.
There actually is a fair amount of research out there on stable
multiplication of polynomials over the real numbers, but (if I remember
right, it was a while ago) there were som
On 04/27/2010 12:38 AM, William Stein wrote:
RJF asks me to forward this, since it bounced for him, evidently.
Thanks.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Fateman
Date: Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [sage-devel] numerically stable fast univariate
polynomial
Thank you very much.
Stephen
On Apr 27, 12:22 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Stephen Loo wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I have upgraded source from 4.3.5 under Mac OS X 10.6.3 x86-64. And
> > output error message below
>
> Try forcing a rebuild of ecl with
>
> sage -f ecl-
2010-04-27 13:29, Gonzalo Tornaria skrev:
2010/4/27 Johan Grönqvist:
Those did not even mention that
there is an alternative definition of norm used in number theory.
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_norm
Thanks. Now I learned something new.
The norm on complex numbers is no
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:46:59AM +0200, Clement Pernet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I could not find a gcc-4.5 install on eno, to replicate the bug.
> On which machine did you run it? (before I start compile it!)
> Could you also attach the linbox config.log to ticket #8769 ?
Hi Clement,
The issue in #876
2010/4/27 Johan Grönqvist :
> The definition of norm on vectors is consistent with definitions of norm
> according to wikipedia [0] and the springer encyclopedia of mathematics [1],
> and (I believe) any book I have ever used. Those did not even mention that
> there is an alternative definition of
On Apr 27, 10:06 am, Johan Grönqvist
wrote:
>
> The concept of a norm, as I have always encountered it, is well defined,
> as in e.g. wikipedia[0] and other mathematics encyclopedias [1], [2], as
> well as (I belive) any book I have used. This refers to vector spaces,
> and I expect that most pe
Dear Sage/Sage-Combinat developers,
With Vincent Delecroix, we are finalizing the review of #7004. This
implements the interface to dot2tex/graphviz for graph layout and
latex output, a long and often requested feature. It should be ready
tomorrow or so, and good to go in 4.4.1 (finally!)
2010-04-27 11:37, Minh Nguyen skrev:
Hi Johan,
2010/4/27 Johan Grönqvist:
The current documentation of norm() on complex numbers can be accessed
from the Sage website [1]. That documentation leaves much to be
desired, even though it makes the distinction between the complex norm
and the absolut
Hi Johan,
2010/4/27 Johan Grönqvist :
> My suggestion is to change the definition of norm on complex numbers.
>
> If that is not changed, I think that the docstring should clearly state that
> sage deviates from the definitions of norm used by wikipedia, springer,
> mathematica, maple and matla
2010-04-26 21:26, John Cremona skrev:
In number theory it is very useful to have this norm-alisation, as
well as the square root one also called abs. It's a special case of
the algebraic concept of norm(a) = product of conjugates of a.
If this was really a problem to non-number-theorists, we c
46 matches
Mail list logo
