On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 8:12:32 AM UTC+1, David Roe wrote:
>
> Create a new git trac subcommand to replace `git trac checkout 1234`, say
> `git trac old 1234`. This would fetch the branch, check it out into a
> completely separate folder within ($SAGE_ROOT/merge_tree or something),
> me
Ideas:
What about changing Cython to optionally use sha1 or md5 hashes instead of
timestamps?
Or write a python script that just sets the time stamps back on all the
files that haven't changed. (Run it before and after...).
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:12 PM David Roe wrote:
> If I checkout an
On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 8:12:32 AM UTC+1, David Roe wrote:
>
> If I checkout an old branch (say, from one or two versions of Sage ago),
> it essentially forces a rebuild of all of Sage, even if I think better of
> it and checkout develop immediately. The rebuild is a consequence of the
If I checkout an old branch (say, from one or two versions of Sage ago), it
essentially forces a rebuild of all of Sage, even if I think better of it
and checkout develop immediately. The rebuild is a consequence of the fact
that Cython builds based on timestamp and all of the files have been
touc
>
> Vincent Neiger will soon join my group for two years as a postdoc, and I
> know he is interested in implementing some of these things. I hope we
> can do some things here and improve Sage's capabilities in this respect.
>
This would be great!
--
You received this message because you are
Hi Vincent,
Thank you for your expert comments and cutting-edge references. My target
is to get hermite normal forms for square matrices over polynomial rings
over finite fields, underlying function field arithmetic. What is available
in Sage for this is only "A._hermite_form_PID()", which is v
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 9:19:45 PM UTC, Han Frederic wrote:
>
> But it looks that the normalisation was in sage singular interface:
> The interred_libsingular function of
> multi_polynomial_ideal_libsingular.pyx
>
> ends in sage 7.4beta5 like this:
>
> # divide head by coefficient
But it looks that the normalisation was in sage singular interface:
The interred_libsingular function of multi_polynomial_ideal_libsingular.pyx
ends in sage 7.4beta5 like this:
# divide head by coefficients
if r.ringtype == 0:
for j from 0 <= j < IDELEMS(result):
p =
Le jeudi 17 novembre 2016 21:15:11 UTC+1, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde a écrit :
>
> John Cremona writes:
> > I once used the weak Popov form in a talk with Hendrik Lenstra in the
> > audience and he was quite amused since it appeared to be (and I think
> > he is right) much the same as his brother Ar
Le jeudi 17 novembre 2016 21:15:11 UTC+1, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde a écrit :
>
> John Cremona writes:
> > I once used the weak Popov form in a talk with Hendrik Lenstra in the
> > audience and he was quite amused since it appeared to be (and I think
> > he is right) much the same as his brother Ar
Regarding the original question: is the question specifically about
computing the HNF? Or, is any other canonical form acceptable? (with known
algorithms, it seems that the Popov form would be easier to implement
efficiently than the HNF)
Also, would you have examples of typical dimensions and
> Not me -- but I did review it in 2010! -- see
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/9069
Ah, I misunderstood what you had written previously :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emai
On 17 November 2016 at 20:15, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote:
> John Cremona writes:
>> That was the algorithm I implemented in Magma. It was not very hard.
>
> Indeed. My student made an effort of comparing C++, Cython and pure Sage
> implementations, in combination with various tweaks to the algo
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 6:34:46 PM UTC, Han Frederic wrote:
>
> With singular 4 on sage I have now:
>
> sage: P. = PolynomialRing(QQ,3, order='lex')
> sage: toto=ideal([7*a - 420*c^3 + 158*c^2 + 8*c - 7, 7*b + 210*c^3 -
> 79*c^2 + 3*c, 84*c^4 - 40*c^3 + c^2 + c])
> sage: toto.interredu
John Cremona writes:
> That was the algorithm I implemented in Magma. It was not very hard.
Indeed. My student made an effort of comparing C++, Cython and pure Sage
implementations, in combination with various tweaks to the algorithm.
In the end the Cython version was at best 2x faster than my p
With singular 4 on sage I have now:
sage: P. = PolynomialRing(QQ,3, order='lex')
sage: toto=ideal([7*a - 420*c^3 + 158*c^2 + 8*c - 7, 7*b + 210*c^3 - 79*c^2
+ 3*c, 84*c^4 - 40*c^3 + c^2 + c])
sage: toto.interreduced_basis?
sage: g=toto.interreduced_basis()
sage: g[0].lc()
7
sage: toto.base_ring()
An optimised version is implemented in fricas, available as
fricas. HP_solve
It might provide a good benchmark.
Martin
--
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, send an ema
On 17 November 2016 at 16:07, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote:
>> I'm sure that Sage already has code for Weak Popov Form. I
>> implemented it myself in about 2004 but from the date you can tell
>> that it was not in Sage (but Magma).
>>
>> Indeed, search_src("popov") finds
>>
>> matrix/matrix_misc.
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:27:15 PM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote:
> Hmm, okay. I am using my system's autoreconf. For the sage autotools
> is that just an optional package I need to install?
>
Yes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-deve
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:11:23 PM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm in the process of patching a couple spkgs that use autotools build
>> systems. I've done this in the past in Sage but it's never been quite
>> c
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:26:39 PM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:25:24 PM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:11:23 PM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm in the process of patching
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:25:24 PM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:11:23 PM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm in the process of patching a couple spkgs that use autotools build
>> systems. I've done this in the past in Sage but it
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 2:04:10 PM UTC, Franco Saliola wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello David!
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:19:18 PM UTC-5, David Roe wrote:
>>>
>>> It's certainly doable, though an initial attempt needs a bi
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:11:23 PM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm in the process of patching a couple spkgs that use autotools build
> systems. I've done this in the past in Sage but it's never been quite
> clear to me what the correct process should be. In this particular
> I'm sure that Sage already has code for Weak Popov Form. I
> implemented it myself in about 2004 but from the date you can tell
> that it was not in Sage (but Magma).
>
> Indeed, search_src("popov") finds
>
> matrix/matrix_misc.py:32:def weak_popov_form(M,ascend=True):
That function doesn't com
Hi,
I'm in the process of patching a couple spkgs that use autotools build
systems. I've done this in the past in Sage but it's never been quite
clear to me what the correct process should be. In this particular
case I am patching both confgure.ac and Makefile.am files.
Should I add just patche
There's been quite a bit of work on Hermite normal form of K[x]-matrices
recently, most notably by Vincent Neiger:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2930889.2930936
This algorithm gives a much faster way of computing the Hermite Normal
form of K[x] matrices. Unfortunately it relies on quite stack
I'm sure that Sage already has code for Weak Popov Form. I
implemented it myself in about 2004 but from the date you can tell
that it was not in Sage (but Magma).
Indeed, search_src("popov") finds
matrix/matrix_misc.py:32:def weak_popov_form(M,ascend=True):
John
On 17 November 2016 at 15:27, '
If there's anything specific I can do to help, just let me know.
On Thursday, 10 November 2016 22:26:50 UTC+1, Victor Shoup wrote:
>
> Just posted a new version. In addition to a few performance improvements,
> I've added new routines that give direct access to the underlying "limbs"
> of a ZZ,
A colleague suggested to look at the Popov form. I didn't look at what Sage
is currently doing, so my apologies if this turns out to not be a useful
comment.
Here is a random paper on this that I found [1].
Bill.
[1] http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/gilles.villard/BIBLIOGRAPHIE/PDF/issac96.pdf
On Tue
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 2:04:10 PM UTC, Franco Saliola wrote:
>
>
> Hello David!
>
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:19:18 PM UTC-5, David Roe wrote:
>>
>> It's certainly doable, though an initial attempt needs a bit more work (I
>> have to go teach now, so taking a break).
>>
>>
Hey Amit,
I think I've found a (rather alarming) bug regarding Iwahori-Hecke algebras:
>
That is not true; you've found a very subtle behavior with matrices and
coercion. There's nothing wrong with the Iwahori-Hecke algebra.
>
> sage: L.=LaurentPolynomialRing(ZZ)
> sage: H=IwahoriHeckeAlgebra('
Hello David!
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:19:18 PM UTC-5, David Roe wrote:
>
> It's certainly doable, though an initial attempt needs a bit more work (I
> have to go teach now, so taking a break).
>
> What scope do we want to support? Running doctests on an object that has
> a __doc__
I think I've found a (rather alarming) bug regarding Iwahori-Hecke algebras:
sage: L.=LaurentPolynomialRing(ZZ)
sage: H=IwahoriHeckeAlgebra('A1',q^2)
sage: T=H.T(); Cp=H.Cp()
sage: T(q*Cp[1])
T[1] + 1
sage: M=MatrixSpace(H,1,1)
sage: M(q)*M(Cp[1])
[q*T[1]]
sage: q*T[1]==T[1]+1
False
Briefly, sage
34 matches
Mail list logo
