Re: [sage-devel] Boost Python (and enumeration of short vectors)

Hi, On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:50:49PM -0800, Martin Raum wrote: > It's about QuadraticForm(...).short_vector_list_up_to_length(l), which > finds all vectors of length less than l. As opposed to fpLLL, which > approximates a basis of short vectors. The same guy who wrote fpLLL > implemented enu

Re: [sage-devel] Boost Python (and enumeration of short vectors)

I am interested! See also #14868. John On 29 January 2014 13:35, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2014-01-29 10:26, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> Yes, it is unbearably slow. But not because of PARI itself, only because >> of the Sage interface. Luckily, fixing that is easy. > > > If anybody cares, this

Re: [sage-devel] Boost Python (and enumeration of short vectors)

On 2014-01-29 10:26, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: Yes, it is unbearably slow. But not because of PARI itself, only because of the Sage interface. Luckily, fixing that is easy. If anybody cares, this is http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15760 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to th

Re: [sage-devel] Boost Python (and enumeration of short vectors)

On 2014-01-28 16:04, Martin Raum wrote: Hi all: You might or might not know that the current implementation of short vectors for quadratic forms (aka lattices) is, say, unreliable. Can you please elaborate what you mean with "unreliable" (i.e. an example where it goes wrong). We are using PA

Re: [sage-devel] Boost Python (and enumeration of short vectors)

This is now #15758 , for all those who want to have a look. Am Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2014 08:50:49 UTC+1 schrieb Martin Raum: > > It's about QuadraticForm(...).short_vector_list_up_to_length(l), which > finds all vectors of length less than l. As opposed to

Re: [sage-devel] Boost Python (and enumeration of short vectors)

It's about QuadraticForm(...).short_vector_list_up_to_length(l), which finds all vectors of length less than l. As opposed to fpLLL, which approximates a basis of short vectors. The same guy who wrote fpLLL implemented enumeration of short vectors in Magama. And clearly, I can't possibly beat t

Re: [sage-devel] Boost Python (and enumeration of short vectors)

Hi, On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:04:10AM -0800, Martin Raum wrote: > Hi all: > > You might or might not know that the current implementation of short > vectors for quadratic forms (aka lattices) is, say, unreliable. We are > using PARI, which, as I was informed, never focused on anything like thi

[sage-devel] Boost Python (and enumeration of short vectors)

Hi all: You might or might not know that the current implementation of short vectors for quadratic forms (aka lattices) is, say, unreliable. We are using PARI, which, as I was informed, never focused on anything like this. Also, the current implementation is quite slow; unbearably slow by my me

Re: [sage-devel] Boost in sage: proper inclusion?

I just tried to build the newest polymake (2.12.rc3) and it doesn't compile because it uses some bit of boost that is not in our cropped boost. It has a configure switch to specify a particular boost, but since it also uses gmp/mpfr it still picks up our cropped boost. And the cropped boost is n

Re: [sage-devel] Boost in sage: proper inclusion?

Le vendredi 18 mai, Volker Braun a écrit: > I just had a look at boost, if we delete the documentation then it is > 25MB. Without documentation and tests it is 15MB, though I'd rather > have the tests included. > > Although most of boost is headers, some libraries need to be > compiled. The bigges

Re: [sage-devel] Boost in sage: proper inclusion?

I just had a look at boost, if we delete the documentation then it is 25MB. Without documentation and tests it is 15MB, though I'd rather have the tests included. Although most of boost is headers, some libraries need to be compiled. The biggest question is probably if we want to build boost/Py

Re: [sage-devel] Boost in sage: proper inclusion?

Le vendredi 18 mai, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit: > On 2012-05-18 10:14, Julien Puydt wrote: > > The second point has bothered me for quite some time already, so > > with the first in the air, it might be time to ask : wouldn't it be > > worth to have a proper boost spkg, which would contain the needed >

Re: [sage-devel] Boost in sage: proper inclusion?

On 2012-05-18 10:14, Julien Puydt wrote: > The second point has bothered me for quite some time already, so > with the first in the air, it might be time to ask : wouldn't it be > worth to have a proper boost spkg, which would contain the needed > frameworks, coming from upstream? In principle I ha

[sage-devel] Boost in sage: proper inclusion?

Hi, I raise the question of boost in sage because : (1) of the recent "PolyBoRi requires boost library" thread on this mailing-list ; (2) because sage 5.0 has a boost_cropped spkg, whose SPKG.txt says it was obtained by taking the sources out of polybori's, which means : (i) it wasn't a proper p

[sage-devel] Boost

Is boost part of Sage? Maybe we should add it. Lot of packages such as 'quantlib' depend on it and it would be nice to have. -- 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 op

[sage-devel] boost coverage by 0.5%

Want to boost doctest coverage in Sage by 0.5%? Review the ticket John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-de