Hi Martin,
I am frustrated with the following and would like to fix it:
>
> Is "Set" supposed to be slow? Replacing "Set" with "set" in
> "SetPartition.__init__" is a huge improvement, we go down to about 5.5 ms
> per loop, but "Set" has bitten me performance (
> https://trac.sagemath.org/tic
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:01:51 PM UTC+10, chris wuthrich wrote:
>
>
> As a simple-minded user I stumbled over exactly this last week. I don't
> understand much of what this thread is discussing, but I know what a
> simple-minded user wants.
>
> sage: G = GL(2,13)
> sage: G = G.as_matrix_gr
Tue 2018-05-29 15:59:27 UTC, Frédéric Chapoton:
>
> here is a small report on the slow progress towards Python3-compatibility
> for Sage.
>
> Sage is already building and starting with python3 since some time
already.
> It is explained in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15530 how to get
> a pytho
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:59:27 AM UTC-7, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> here is a small report on the *slow* progress towards
> python3-compatibility for sage.
>
> Sage is already building and starting with python3 since some time
> already. It is explained in https://trac.sagemath.
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 8:57:06 PM UTC+2, Martin R wrote:
>
> sage: hash(frozenset())
> 133156838395276
>
Personally, I always use set and frozenset in code. I use Set when I want
nice latex output when using the interface.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Go
Actually, I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to change the internal
representation of set partitions to restricted growth words (together with
a fixed ordering of the base set).
On the one hand, very likely everything becomes much faster.
On the other hand, this may make the code slightly m
sage: hash(frozenset())
133156838395276
Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018 20:44:48 UTC+2 schrieb Sébastien Labbé:
> > Is there any point at all in having "Set"?
>
> sage: hash(Set())
> 133156838395276
> sage: hash(set())
> ---
> Type
> Is there any point at all in having "Set"?
sage: hash(Set())
133156838395276
sage: hash(set())
---
TypeError Traceback (most recent call last)
in ()
> 1 hash(set())
TypeError: unhashabl
Dear all,
I am frustrated with the following and would like to fix it:
Is "Set" supposed to be slow? Replacing "Set" with "set" in
"SetPartition.__init__" is a huge improvement, we go down to about 5.5 ms
per loop, but "Set" has bitten me performance
(https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23877) a
Hello,
here is a small report on the *slow* progress towards python3-compatibility
for sage.
Sage is already building and starting with python3 since some time already.
It is explained in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15530 how to get a
python3-sage. One can note an even longer startup time
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Erik
>
> On 2018-05-28, Erik Bray wrote:
>> I think Sage could use a better way to keep
>> track of and/or enforce immutability of classes (that is, instances of
>> classes). For example, have some base class which can be used as a
>> mix-i
On 29 May 2018 at 12:01, chris wuthrich
wrote:
>
> As a simple-minded user I stumbled over exactly this last week. I don't
> understand much of what this thread is discussing, but I know what a
> simple-minded user wants.
>
> sage: G = GL(2,13)
> sage: G = G.as_matrix_group()
> sage: H = G.subgro
As a simple-minded user I stumbled over exactly this last week. I don't
understand much of what this thread is discussing, but I know what a
simple-minded user wants.
sage: G = GL(2,13)
sage: G = G.as_matrix_group()
sage: H = G.subgroup([ matrix(GF(13),[[1,0],[1,1]]) ])
sage: H2 = G.subgroup([
13 matches
Mail list logo
