On Mar 31, 2008, at 3:43 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> There was some discussion a week or so ago about a more efficient
> implentation of cyclotomic polynomials, which led to trac#2654. I
> have tried various alternatives of the prototype code posted there,
> finding that the speed varied enormo
On Mar 31, 2008, at 6:09 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Relevant code:
[snip]
To profile this properly, you shouldn't do it just at powers of ten,
since the running time will depend heavily on the factorisation
pattern of n. I guess you should do some examples with lots of small
prime factor
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Genya Zaytman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: March 31, 2008 1:15:21 PM EDT
> To: David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Fwd: Multivariate Polynomial Factoring is Broken
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Genya Zaytma
On Mar 30, 2008, at 6:31 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> there have been a large, nebulous set of rules regarding how things
> are done in trac, patch review and merging and the Sage development
> process in general. Now I finally took the time to clear those up and
> I put a *draft* of
On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:53 AM, David Harvey wrote:
>> I'm trying to decide if Sage's new "mathematica manipulate" like
>> functionality should
>> be called "manipulate" or "interact".
Oh and by the way, it looks
On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:18 AM, William Stein wrote:
> I'm trying to decide if Sage's new "mathematica manipulate" like
> functionality should
> be called "manipulate" or "interact".
[...]
> Thoughts about the above names:
>1. Mathematica calls this command "Manipulate", so if
> we call it ma
On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:01 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Before we can release Sage-3.0 the doctest coverage must reach 50%.
> This is one of the more
> difficult goals for Sage-3.0. Thus I propose that we have a "Sage Doc
> Days" this Sunday.
> Whose interested in helping?
Sure.
david
--~--~
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Andrzej Chrzęszczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: March 5, 2008 6:23:53 PM EST
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: sage-devel "exact" numerical integration
>
> Dear David
> Try
>
> sage: maxima_console()
> (%i1) integrate(%e^(-x^2),x,0,0.1);
>
I tried doing some integrals today and the output doesn't make much
sense to me:
sage: f = e^(-x^2)
sage: f.integrate(x, 0, 0.1)
2066*sqrt(pi)/36741
sage: f.integrate(x, 0, 1/10)
sqrt(pi)*erf(1/10)/2
H. Does this mean erf(1/10) is a rational number? That's a little
surprising to me. In f
Proxy Error
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET /sage_trac/.
Reason: Error reading from remote server
?
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sag
Currently in sage.rings.polynomial we have the following class
hierarchy:
Polynomial
Polynomial_dense_modn
Polynomial_dense_modn_ntl_zz
Polynomial_dense_modn_ntl_ZZ
Polynomial_dense_modp
The implementations are via some weird combination of direct NTL
access a
Okay
So pretty much everyone seems to like the proposal, and from
discussion on IRC and sage-devel we're going to use derivative()
instead of diff(), which is fine with me.
I'm going to start coding as soon as I discuss with martin about the
have_ring parameter issues
david
On Fe
On Feb 24, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Fallen Seraph wrote:
> The function I was interested in was:
>
> g(p,q) = 2*q(exp((q+p)^4)+1)+p(2*exp((q+p)^4)-1)
It's not clear to me whether the first q is supposed to be multiplied
by the following stuff, or whether q is supposed to be a *function*
being eval
After hearing some ideas on IRC regarding the derivatives mess, in
this email I propose a plan. It's rough around the edges. Comments
welcome.
CURRENT SITUATION
There are currently at least 18 different functions for
differentiation in Sage, attached to polynomials, power series,
symbol
okay I made a list of all diff() and derivative() and
differentiate() functions that we should probably be caring about for
this issue. The list does not include aliases.
functions/elementary.py
class ElementaryFunction_class(CommutativeRingElement):
def differentiate(self,
On Feb 23, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> Currently, symbolic expressions have 3 identical "derivative"
> methods: .derivative(), .diff(), and .differentiate() (that is, they
> are aliases of each other). These have a powerful argument list;
> foo.diff(x, 3, y, z, 2) differentiates three
On Feb 23, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> David Harvey, http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3404";>Efficient
> computation of p-adic heights (18 pages), 2007.
This will appear soon in LMS JCM.
http://www.lms.ac.uk/jcm/
> David Harvey, http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0610973";
On Feb 22, 2008, at 3:49 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Jason Grout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I've found a nice implementation of the DLX algorithm, which
>>> "quickly" solves the NP-Complete exact cover problem. For those
On Feb 22, 2008, at 2:43 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I poked around in the install log and the issue is "Resource
> temporarily unavailable", i.e. the dreaded OSX resource limits that
> are too low. A suggested fix is at
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.org/Tips
Thanks, well spotted!
> So: no
On Feb 22, 2008, at 8:29 AM, Michael.Abshoff wrote:
> Could you please post slightly more of the log? It looks like it
> happens
> during "make install" which would make it easy to fix. Is it
> reproducible?
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/dmharvey/install.log.gz
I am going to try buil
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:15 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> this is 2.10.2.rc0, which hopefully will be identical to 2.10.2
> final.
> Please build and doctest this release and report any issue you
> come across. At this point only critical issues will be patched,
> i.e. doctest failures o
On Feb 21, 2008, at 1:18 PM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Can someone point me to the documentation for the feature where,
> for example,
>
> E.__order
>
> is translated to
>
> E._EllipticCurve_finite_field__order ?
>
> It appears that in several places where I thought I was caching data,
> I am not
On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:21 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> I'm still willing to work on the "randgen" class I described toward
>> the end of this thread:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/
>> c2d86a2685018112/4b3136c4a784015a?#4b3136c4a784015a
>>
>> Basically I'm just
On Feb 13, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
> John also needs identity and inverses, which requires passing in
> three or functions. Or, more likely a struct, which in an OO
> language, I call an object.
>
> To me, that means you're writing a special purpose "abstract group"
> wrapper fo
On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
> Do others agree that cyclotomic_polynomial should be over ZZ? If so,
> I will fix it.
Absolutely.
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
On Feb 10, 2008, at 9:13 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Any line with "random" anywhere in it is replaced by
>
>sage: _ = [the original line]
>
>[original output] <--- gets ignored because of the newline
>
> This is so doctests with random output can still be run using exactly
> the sa
I'm having a weird problem, I think with the test framework.
I have a clean build of 2.10.1, and clone a new branch.
In this branch, I can do ./sage -t devel/sage/sage/rings/arith.py,
and all tests pass.
Now I edit that file arith.py. At line 874, I change
sage: random_prime(10)
On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> OK, I'm quite happy with this (thanks David for suggesting it
> and Carl for telling me how to do it!)
>
> I've put this in and played around with it. It is definitely
> *much* faster for the huge examples that I tried, and it's
> also fast enou
On Jan 27, 2008, at 10:55 PM, David Harvey wrote:
>> We actually know what the first few digits (or, actually, all of
>> them)
>> of *compare* are: 1000...
>
> Sorry, you're right, I wasn't very coherent.
>
> What I think I meant was to quickly
On Jan 27, 2008, at 10:44 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> David's suggestion was:
> - -
> * instead of computing the whole power, just estimate the top
> couple of
> digits using MPFR (much much much faster than computing the whole
> power)
> * keep increasing precision until we ca
On Jan 18, 2008, at 12:46 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> Oooh these are hard. We still haven't settled on consistent semantics
>> for the power operator. Given the types of A and B, I'm never sure
>> what to expect the type of A^B to be. For example:
>>
>> sage: type(Integer(2)^Rational(2))
>>
>>
On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:32 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> Let A be a matrix not over ZZ or QQ:
>>
>> A.adjoint()
>> A.inverse()
>>
>> are not implemented.
>
> I don't think they should be. There are already (at least) 3 ways
> to do this:
Wait a sec I agree with David K on the adjoint i
Hi folks (especially william + robert + david roe),
I showed up for Doc Days 1 and started looking at the infinity and
extended integer ring stuff.
Question: why does the "unsigned infinity ring" not have a zero
element, whereas the "(signed) infinity ring" has a zero?
This is okay:
sage:
On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> What about
>
> sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 + x - (3^3-3))
> sage: E = EllipticCurve('37a'); E
> Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + y = x^3 - x over Rational Field
> sage: X = E.change_ring(K); X
> Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + y = x^3 + (-1)*x
On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:08 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> I think this computation (in the quotient ring) makes sense even if
> the ideal is not prime. I had already tried to do it that way, but
> failed.
>
> However I am not quite convinced that verifying P1+(P1+P3)==(P1+P2)+P3
> is genuinely provin
(moved over from sage-support...)
On Jan 14, 2008, at 10:28 PM, David Harvey wrote:
> What would be *really* nice is if we could work directly in the
> fraction field of the quotient of R. by the
> appropriate ideal. (Does that even make sense? Is the ideal prime?) I
> tried to do t
Build successful on mac OS 10.4.10, ppc G5. Didn't run doctests due
to known issue with combinatorics stuff.
david
On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:24 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sage 10.2.alpha2 is out. The main change is the switch
> of python to ucs4. If you don't know what that is don't
> worry
Here are some random things, nothing terribly important.
project_summary.pdf:
* "Kazhdan-Lusztig-Vogan" should use en-dashes not hyphens (this
occurs in a few other files too I think, also Sato-Tate, etc. (but
not Swinnerton-Dyer!))
* "Much of the data that arises out of these projects will
When you google for "mathematica", at the top of the search results
you get this a bunch of extra links ("Students", "Mathematica Home
Page", "Demonstrations Project", etc.)
I'm not sure how this works, I guess it's some meta-data in the html
of the mathematica website. I'm sure someone on
On Dec 24, 2007, at 7:40 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> I did find some occurrences of 63 instead of FLINT_BITS-1, but I don't
> believe this should be causing any problems with that function.
>
> Since the function doesn't say fail, I can only imagine this is an out
> of memory problem. But I don't s
When I upgrade from 2.9 to 2.9.1, the FLINT test suite is being run.
Probably it's a good idea to disable this in the release versions,
it's quite time-consuming?
Also I noticed this during the test suite (mac os 10.4.10, ppc g5):
[...]
Testing fmpz_convert()... ok
Testing fmpz_size()... ok
Hi Nils,
I've been looking at
http://www.sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/1482
and approximately diagnosed the problem (see comments on the ticket),
but it's not clear to me exactly how to proceed.
The new underlying gcd code produces quite inscrutable output, for
example:
sage: xgcd
On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>> So you mean, the only way to do it is that someone buys some big
>> license from Microsoft which allows multi-user remote access? Pricing
>> is (number of users) * (price per license)?
>
> That is my impression -- I don't know if the price p
On Dec 21, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>
> On Friday 21 December 2007 08:42, David Harvey wrote:
>> I've said it before and I'll say it again: if someone can make
>> working on windows as easy and legal for me as "ssh sage.math", then
>> I
On Dec 21, 2007, at 7:18 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>> But please don't forget, sage is about open source - and windows is
>> the complete opposite.
>
> [begin rant] Well, we support OSX, too, and that isn't exactly Open
> Source either. While Apple itself is somewhat more friendly to the
> Open Source
On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Yi Qiang wrote:
> I believe it is supposed to be a custom view that shows tickets you've
> reported, although it's not working for me.
Are you logged in?
(I don't suppose you're seeing tickets reported by ME? (i.e. by
dmharvey?) Did I mess up?)
david
--~--~---
On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:47 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
> David,
>
> Did you mean to attach something to that ticket?
no... sorry I put "[with patch]" but I really meant "[solution
has been implemented]" but no-one ever writes that and I didn't want
to feel left out :-(
The point is that the
Hi paul,
is this what you wanted?
http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/report/9
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this gr
On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> I get about 7us per loop on sage.math for Pari for the exponentiation.
> So perhaps this is all architecture dependent. This would not surprise
> me in the slightest.
>
> At any rate, I suspect the algorithms used for factorisation are
> implemen
Hi folks,
I've started working on a new C library called "zn_poly", which does
polynomial arithmetic in (Z/nZ)[x], where n fits into an unsigned
long. Similar to NTL's zz_pX class. This might eventually be part of
FLINT, but for now it's a separate project.
I am maintaining a website for z
On Dec 17, 2007, at 6:00 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to define inverse csc, sec, and cot and their hyperbolic
> versions. I dug through
> $SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage-main/build/sage/calculus/calculus.py and
> thought I
Hi Dan,
I'm not sure if the following will solve your problem,
Hi guys,
I am writing a library for polynomial arithmetic which I might
eventually like to see included in Sage. (It is not presently part of
FLINT, but maybe one day it will be.)
I would like to release it simultaneously under GPL v2 and GPL v3. I
specifically do not want to use the claus
typos:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 11:01 PM, Timothy Clemans wrote:
> Magma. To achieve this goal in a reasonable about of time the Sage
=> "amount of time"
> the direction of William Stein, lead developer of Sage, 24 talented
> high school used Sage via the notebook in a computer lab to explore
=> "h
On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>> If the divisor is monic, then everything is okay, but if the divisor
>> is not monic, it's not clear what the remainder should be. I took the
>> agnostic option for the moment.
>
> Why not make it agree with Magma's multivariate definition
On Dec 7, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's a couple of questions that have occurred to me as I tried to
> make
> fraction fields of mpolynomials tolerable to work with.
>
> 1) In the "reduce" method in the file fraction_field_element.py
> (line 72), we
> call quo_re
Yeah, I would be much more inclined to spend hours writing doctests
if I knew there were like ten other people doing so at the same time.
david
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> some quick idea such that Sage dominates our lives even more:
>
> 1. We should
On Dec 4, 2007, at 5:09 AM, fwc wrote:
>>> 1) Taylor series of a rational function.
>>
>>> This works:
>>> sage: cos(x).taylor(x,0,2)
>>
>>> This doesn't:
>>> sage: x/(1+x).taylor(x,0,2)
>>
>>> This is very confusing:
>
>> This is due to the fact that '.' binds tighter than '/'. For
>> examp
On Dec 3, 2007, at 11:20 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2007 8:13 AM, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I did try to check that Mathematica was getting the right answer, but
>> I had no luck. I don't know how to convert a mathematica matrix into
>> ordinary matrix form in SAGE, so
On Dec 3, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> I've just been looking at SAGE ticket number 173:
>
> http://www.sagemath.org:9002/sage_trac/ticket/173
>
> The idea is that Mathematica raises a 3 dimensional matrix M over QQ
> to the power 20,000 much faster than either SAGE or Magma.
>
> I don't
On Nov 29, 2007, at 5:41 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>> So, hypothetically speaking, if I wanted to help with windows
>> development, what are my options for getting windows running on my
>> macbook?
>>
>
> With bootcamp you can install Windows in a separate partition. VMWare
> Fusion lets you virtualiz
On Nov 29, 2007, at 4:48 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Ok, I started fleshing out the windows port page at
>
>http://wiki.sagemath.org/windows
>
> Please add content and/or comments, we need to get this going. A data
> point: Maxima 5.13 was downloaded about 40,000 times for Windows since
> the re
On Nov 22, 2007, at 10:25 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2007 6:53 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> \> On Nov 22, 2007 9:35 AM, David Harvey
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I
Hi all,
I'd like to discuss this abelian group thing a bit further, from the
point of view of design issues rather than algorithms.
Currently in SAGE the situation appears to be the following. An
AbelianGroup represents a (not necessarily finite) abelian group
whose structure is *known*; i
Hi all,
I'd like to discuss this abelian group thing a bit further, from the
point of view of design issues rather than algorithms.
Currently in SAGE the situation appears to be the following. An
AbelianGroup represents a (not necessarily finite) abelian group
whose structure is *known*; i
On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have a simple question: I'm trying to write a new class in a new
> file.
> How do I get that file to show up in Sage? In this case, I'm trying
> to write a menu.py file under the sage/server/notebook/widgets
> directory
On Nov 19, 2007, at 10:10 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>> I think the idea is supposed to be that part of the definition of the
>> black box is that it can produce random elements, regardless of
>> whether you know the generators. So for example, suppose our group is
>> the multiplicative group of Z/
On Nov 19, 2007, at 6:59 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>> Further down the road, Drew Sutherland is thinking about writing a C+
>> + library for computing things like orders, exponents, structures of
>> generic abelian groups. Basically you give it a "black box" that
>> knows how to add group elements
On Nov 19, 2007, at 4:55 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>> I still don't believe this algorithm.
>>
>> Look at this example:
>>
>> sage: K. = GF(3^4)
>> sage: K.polynomial()
>> a^4 + 2*a^3 + 2
>> sage: E = EllipticCurve(K, [2*a^2 + 2*a + 2, 2*a^3 + 2*a + 1])
>> sage: points = E.points()
>> sage: len
On Nov 18, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> On Sunday 18 November 2007, David Harvey wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 2007, at 4:16 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>> #1130
>>>
>>> This seems to rely on an earlier patch. (#1120?) See comments on
>
On Nov 18, 2007, at 4:16 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> #1130
>
> This seems to rely on an earlier patch. (#1120?) See comments on trac.
I'm very concerned about this patch. It is not the case that the LCM
of the orders of all elements of E(GF(q)) will equal the order of E(GF
(q)). I haven't
On Nov 17, 2007, at 7:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
> I'm pretty excited about this! I think it would be extremely
> amazingly
> useful if you could make up some more examples like this one
>
> sage: a = Slider(1,10)
> sage: plot(sin(a()*x),-3,3)
Why not just
> plot(sin(a*x),-3,3)
instead of
sage: N = 5^1000
sage: R = Integers(N)
sage: S. = PolynomialRing(R)
sage: v = R(37)
sage: f = S([v])
Am I correct in saying that with the current codebase, the last line
in the above code is converting v to a ZZ_pX via a decimal string?
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~-
Does the lucky bug reporter get a prize?
david
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/gr
On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:47 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On 10/23/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> For huge Z, I wonder if it's still trying to do multi-modular? That
>>> would probably be bad. I'm also not sure how much of the di
On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> 1) mpz_sizeinbase(..., 2) gives the number of bits in the number.
>> This will be O(1), but has to count how many bits are used in the
>> highest-order word. mpz_sizeinbase(..., 16) or mpz_sizeinbase(...,
>> 32) may or may not be faster.
>>
On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:24 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> Is there a way to get the size of an integer (really fast, like a
> macro getting the number of words)? One could perhaps override
> _strassen_default_cutoff (though I don't know how much overhead this
> would be for matrices with smallish en
Hi,
I'm interested in multiplying smallish matrices over Z with huge
entries.
On my machine, sage can multiply 300-bit integers in about 0.14s,
and adding integers of that size takes about 1/1000 of the time:
sage: x = ZZ.random_element(2^300)
sage: y = ZZ.random_element(2^300)
Arrggghhh. When you do code inspection via factor_padic?, the period
apparently gets filtered out. That's not very helpful somehow.
david
On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:37 AM, David Roe wrote:
> The reason is that that doctest has sage.:
> David
>
> On 10/18/07, David Harvey
Umm..
sage: R. = QQ[]
sage: f = x^3 - 2
sage: f.factor_padic(2)
---
Traceback (most recent call
last)
/Users/david/sage-2.8.4/ in ()
/Users/david/sage-2.8.4/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/ri
On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:50 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On 10/17/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bobby and I don't really like
>>>sage: a.rhs.expand()
>>> since it's a hackish abuse of notation and it is confusing to read.
>>> It's clever though (which is not good).
>>
>> I
On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
> sage: is_FractionField(QQ)
> False
Any field is a fraction field (of itself), and any non-field is *not*
a fraction field, so mathematically "is_FractionField" is kind of
stupid. I suppose it really means "is_implemented_as_a_fraction_fi
I filed a related ticket a few month ago:
http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/467
david
On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On 10/10/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Only 20% compared to base-10 strings? It seems like there should be
>> more gain than tha
Hi Carl,
I haven't yet thought hard about the details of what you propose, but
I'm just curious why you are suggesting to use gmp_randstate_t as the
"most basic type".
One property I would like the system to have is: the most basic
random number generator should be insanely fast, even if t
When I start up sage, I get different random number seeds every time,
e.g.
$ ./sage
sage: ZZ.random_element()
2
.
$ ./sage
sage: ZZ.random_element()
-4
The seeding --- at least for this case --- seems to be happening in
random.pxi.
We *really* need a way of specifying a random seed a
On Oct 7, 2007, at 10:02 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Because of the truncated FFT in FLINT, this turns out to be way more
> efficient. I believe Magma gets around this by using classical
> multiplication when the length of one of the operands is less than 10
> (this is something SAGE could do too).
I find this very confusing:
sage: F. = QuadraticField(-5)
sage: F.ideal(6)
Fractional ideal (6) of Number Field in a with defining polynomial
x^2 + 5
sage: QQ.ideal(6)
Principal ideal (1) of Rational Field
This means that if I write code that can work over an arbitrary
number field, I have
The __init__ function in class Polynomial_generic_dense (in sage/
rings/polynomial/polynomial_element.pyx) is unnecessarily ugly
because of the absprec parameter showing up everywhere. This was
introduced I think by David Roe to deal with polynomials over p-adic
rings. But something smells
>> test-support.o: In function `__gmpz_fits_uint_p':
>> test-support.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of
>> `__gmpz_fits_uint_p'
>> Z_mpn-test.o:Z_mpn-test.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here
>> test-support.o: In function `__gmpz_fits_ulong_p':
>>
>> Here is the end of the install.log
>>
>> ZmodF
On Sep 25, 2007, at 4:43 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> Okay, so what if MS makes the FSF people an offer they can't refuse,
>> "buys them out", releases a new GPL v4 which says "you can do
>> anything you want with this code". I've agreed to be bound by any
>> subsequent license version right? So
On Sep 24, 2007, at 1:31 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
> Anyway, GMP has been stale for... 5 years?
Why do people keep saying that GMP is stale?
This has not been my observation at all.
There are not insignificant performance differences between even a
fairly recent version (like 4.1.4) and t
On Sep 23, 2007, at 11:06 PM, Alec Mihailovs wrote:
>
>> This is only perhaps ideal from the typical end user's point of view.
>> The GPL-style license is greatly preferred over the BSD/MIT as the
>> license for Sage by most Sage developers (this was discussed a lot
>> at Sage Days 2). In fact
On Sep 23, 2007, at 10:20 PM, William Stein wrote:
> much in years, and likewise GMP hasn't had anything interesting
> happen release-wise in nearly 2 years. (The most interesting GMP
> work has
> been outside the GMP project.)
I'm not sure I agree with this. I strongly suspect GMP is likely
On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq
>> which has a nice matrix showing what is legal to combine.
>
> This table very clearly says that a GPL v2 project cannot link in an
> LGPL v3 library.
> We will thus not be upgrading the Sage GMP package to 4.2.2
On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:47 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Strange: after adding -verbose, it has got way past the point where
> it had previously stuck (but has not finished the testall yet).
Yes this is what happened to me too. I have no idea what to make of
this.
david
--~--~-~--~--
On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:09 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> I upgraded to 2.8.5 ok (kubuntu 7.04, kernel 2.6.20-16-generic, gcc
> version 4.1.2).
>
> sage --testall hangs at this point:
> Testing SAGE constructions guide
> sage -t const.tex
Yes I got this too, on mac os 10.4.10, intel core duo.
Wha
Something funny on mac os 10.4.10, core 2 duo
On a clean build of sage 2.8.5. When I run sage -testall it basically
freezes when it gets to "Testing SAGE constructions guide". It just
sits there permanently; top reports the CPU is basically idle.
But when I do sage -testall -verbose, the
On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:55 PM, William Stein wrote:
> And, if anybody out there thinks adding the above to the preparser
> would make you positively cringe in disgust, please speak up!
> (It doesn't mean we won't add it anyways...)
Positively cringe in disgust.
-1
david
--~--~-~--~--
On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:00 AM, William Stein wrote:
> I also want to make ZZ[a,b,c]
> work, if a,b,c are algebraic integers.
Suppose that b and c are roots of x^3 - 2, but without any embedding
information given. How do you decide what Q[b, c] means? i.e. how do
you tell whether b and c are
On Sep 15, 2007, at 3:30 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On 9/14/07, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In actual fact, it should be possible for us to write efficient
>> conversion routines in C for going from a FLINT polynomial object to
>> an NTL polynomial object and vice versa (at the ve
On Sep 13, 2007, at 11:11 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Since nobody says they can't do Thursday, September 20th (one week
> from today), let's have
>
> ***
> SAGE BUG SQUASH DAY 3
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.o
101 - 200 of 492 matches
Mail list logo
