Dear Joel,
On Oct 9, 7:28 pm, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Hmm, that's a pretty big improvement over the SAGE time above. I suspect that
we will have to work a lot harder than either of our optimizations have so
far.
After slightly improving my MeatAxe extension type for
Dear sage-support team,
Michael wrote:
When i take a 4x4 matrix over GF(7) with n=101, test function 1
needs 92.50 s CPU time, but test function 2 only needs 1.49 s CPU
time!
Hence, in that case, MeatAxe (actually a very old version!!) appears
to be faster than Sage built with
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 13:05, Simon King wrote:
Michael wrote:
When i take a 4x4 matrix over GF(7) with n=101, test function 1
needs 92.50 s CPU time, but test function 2 only needs 1.49 s CPU
time!
Hence, in that case, MeatAxe (actually a very old version!!) appears
to be
On 10/4/07, Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear sage-support team,
i'm trying to convince my boss about using modern linear algebra
software (as part of a project on group cohomology rings). However, i
need better arguments. Perhaps you have some?
This is separate from your question,
