Hey, I've wanted to contribute to sage, and graphs and groups provided by
sage is something I use quite often. So, I was wondering how I could help
with the issue? If you'd be okay mentoring me, that'd be great :)
On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 07:53:41 UTC+5:30, Stefan wrote:
>
> Yeah, that one d
Yeah, that one doesn't have any timings. I guess someone should sit down
and run some tests. Not sure if it'll be me, I'm swamped with work :(
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 2:44:06 PM UTC-5, David Joyner wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Stefan >
> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Everybo
> The method Graph.is_isomorphic can call "bliss", though. Which was solidly
> faster than our own implementation of it when it was added.
sorry: Graph.automorphism_group()
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe f
I don't think we were ever competitive with nauty speed-wise. But the
code has been written to a very high level of generality and is
capable of working with any objects whose symmetry groups are
interpreted in S_n with only a small amount of work. It has also been
through a lot of debugging and us
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Stefan wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Everybody knows nauty (and maybe traces?) is the state of the art in graph
> isomorphism and canonical labeling of graphs. What I don't know (but maybe
> you do?) is how far SageMath is lagging behind. Did anyone do any testing on
> this
Hello,
> Not sure whether you can use it for graph isomorphism in Sage easily,
> though.
>
Nop, currently Graph.is_isomorphic does not call it. Could be nice though,
as it would then become possible to compare the two.
The method Graph.is_isomorphic can call "bliss", though. Which was solidl
On Monday, 5 October 2015 11:14:54 UTC-7, Stefan wrote:
>
>
> Everybody knows nauty (and maybe traces?) is the state of the art in graph
> isomorphism and canonical labeling of graphs. What I don't know (but maybe
> you do?) is how far SageMath is lagging behind. Did anyone do any testing
> on
Hi guys,
Everybody knows nauty (and maybe traces?) is the state of the art in graph
isomorphism and canonical labeling of graphs. What I don't know (but maybe
you do?) is how far SageMath is lagging behind. Did anyone do any testing
on this? I saw a mention of a paper by Robert Miller, but the
Boost.SIMD library looks very promising!
I would expect that within a few years, SIMD instruction sets continue to
become
more regular and useful, and that tools like Boost.SIMD will become more
widely
available and useful...and who knows, maybe even a part of C++...
So I'd rather wait until that
On 5 October 2015 at 13:13, Victor Shoup wrote:
>
> I hesitate somewhat to get involved in SIMD game, as all the assembly code
> / intrinsics stuff is a huge time sink that
> will yield code that will probably be obsolete in 10 years. Multicore, on
> the other hand, seems like a better
> investme
I think I see how the fake bouncing works. Someone has either subscribed to
sage-devel so they can send fake bounces to everyone, or they are scraping
the information from one of the many locations on the web where sage-devel
is reproduced and using that to generate a fake bounce. To what end I
I think I see how the fake bouncing works. Someone has either subscribed to
sage-devel so they can send fake bounces to everyone, or they are scraping
the information from one of the many locations on the web where sage-devel
is reproduced and using that to generate a fake bounce. To what end I
Actually, I'll correct myself: SIMD can also be used to speed up the CRT
operations in the
multi-modular algorithm as well, at least up to a few thousand bits. So
even in the grand and glorious
SIMD future, there will probably be room to explore a variety of
algorithmic approaches.
On Monday,
>
> As far as I remember, the idea was to replace jmol with it.
> (But may be I am wrong).
>
>
That was an idea - or at least to have this as another option. I believe
(?) William uses, or used for a while, a souped-up version for 3d graphics
in SMC.
> Is this always an active project? Is
This is the announcement of the GAP and SageMath training event
in Manchester - hope this is the right mailing list to post it for the
SageMath
community. On Twitter, the link to this announcement is in this Tweet:
https://twitter.com/gap_system/status/650979176472834048
Best wishes,
Ale
Yes, I saw a paper by the mathemagix people recently...I believe they use
the floating point SIMD, and some
tricks with "fused multiply and add" to very nice effect.
They are basically implementing integer mod p arithmetic using floating
point.
I may want to play around with those ideas at som
An answer from 2014
http://baojie.org/blog/2014/06/16/call-java-from-python/
Vincent
On 05/10/15 07:11, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Hello everybody,
In the recent thread about Sage's future, some people voiced their
opinion that what Sage does best is "ask other softwares" when it does
not know the
Hello everybody,
In the recent thread about Sage's future, some people voiced their
opinion that what Sage does best is "ask other softwares" when it does
not know the answer. And surely Sage wouldn't be half of what it is
without the dozens of dedicated libraries it calls at each run.
I wondered
Every time I post to this thread I get a fake bounce from anjeri2010.jobbo
AT blogger DOT com .
Does anyone know why this happens?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
Difficult to tell. I had the impression that it gradually became worse
in the past year or so, becoming really bad since perhaps a month. But I
didn't keep a record of my docbuild experiences.
Yes, that's my impression too, that it just gradually becam
I haven't looked recently, but Prime95 always used to suffer from
theoretical roundoff error. They go along later with a slower FFT to verify
everything.
It's been a long time since I looked though. Things might have changed.
Bill.
On Monday, 5 October 2015 11:26:14 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wr
On Monday, 5 October 2015 04:18:27 UTC+2, Victor Shoup wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Bill! A bit of friendly competition is always a
> good thing :-)
>
I agree. Software development is more interesting when there are people
working on similar things.
>
> I've been looking into SIMD f
Hi all,
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 4:18:27 AM UTC+2, Victor Shoup wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Bill! A bit of friendly competition is always a
> good thing :-)
>
> I've been looking into SIMD for small prime FFT's...unfortunately, there
> is currently
> no CPU out there that supports
Hi,
Le lundi 5 octobre 2015 07:36:05 UTC+2, William a écrit :
>
> Type
>
>parallel?
>
> in Sage for a simple but very useful parallel decorator in Sage, that
> I addedabout 6 years. The API is slightly confusing, and it would be
> nice to have something better. But it's pretty easy to u
On 2015-10-05 01:03, Simon King wrote:
Difficult to tell. I had the impression that it gradually became worse
in the past year or so, becoming really bad since perhaps a month. But I
didn't keep a record of my docbuild experiences.
Yes, that's my impression too, that it just gradually became wo
Hi Jori,
On 2015-10-05, Jori =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E4ntysalo?= wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Simon King wrote:
>
>> Since a couple of weeks, building Sage becomes really annoying. "make
>> start" is fine. But as soon as I want to build the docs in two parallel
>> threads, it makes my laptop unusable
26 matches
Mail list logo
