Hi Nicolas,
Ok. Actually, now that you have been convinced, could you throw in a
quick paragraph about how you see this? An outsiders view would be
quite helpful as a starting point for me to write this.
Yes, I will do this once I'm comfortable with the issues below.
My next step is to
This returns False.
R = CartanType(D4xA5)
R.is_crystalographic()
This seems to me to be the wrong answer.
Is there something I've missed?
Thanks
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-combinat-devel group.
To post to this group, send email to
On May 13, 9:14 pm, Jason Bandlow jband...@gmail.com wrote:
In principle, CombinatorialFreeModule is exactly the right tool for
this. As Florent pointed out, this class has no difficulties with
infinite sets. The problem is that the objects that make up your basis
must be immutable.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:57:16AM -0700, Bruce wrote:
This returns False.
R = CartanType(D4xA5)
R.is_crystalographic()
This seems to me to be the wrong answer.
Is there something I've missed?
Thanks for the report! This is definitely a bug; or let's say a
missing feature: the class:
Hi Jason!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 09:46:03AM -0400, Jason Bandlow wrote:
While doing this a couple of questions came up. First, a small design
issue. In your example, there is this method in the AlgebraWithRealizations:
def realizations(self):
return [...]
This is not so
Hi Anne!
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 06:50:22PM -0700, Anne Schilling wrote:
I finished the use of the category framework for crystals. It is
available both on trac and the sage-combinat server.
Great.
A couple of questions:
* It seems that this patch depends on #8881. At least if I
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:13:10PM -0700, Bruce wrote:
I think I see what I need to do. Create a dummy class C which is
hashable and immutable.
Have a dictionary which has objects of C and planar graphs.
Every time I create a planar graph, see if it is isomorphic to one in
the dictionary.
If
Hi Brant!
Good to hear from you :-)
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 05:56:38PM -0700, Brant Jones wrote:
Anne and I are working on merging some code that implements the
Lenart--Postnikov alcove path model into sage. The algorithm needed a
few features that aren't available in the root_system
Hi Nicolas,
I disabled several of your patches in the queue since they had
import loops and hence one could not launch sage anymore
...
trac_8881-functorial_constructions-nt.patch #+disabled
...
trac_8890-free_module-cleanup-nt.patch #+disabled
...
trac_7980-multiple-realizations-nt.patch
On 13 mai, 19:03, Roman Pearce rpear...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 13, 2:45 am, parisse bernard.pari...@ujf-grenoble.fr wrote:
In my own experience, coding with an univariate polynomial is not
efficient especially if the polynomial is sparse.
There must be some kind of inefficiency. If you
I think my previous reply to this message got eaten, so I'm sending it
again.
On 11 mei, 23:32, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
(...) should
I start with a module over the Symbolic Ring, or is another ring more
appropriate?
Have you got anywhere reading the Sage developers guide?
By the way, there is now a package for the chromium browser, and it runs
sage nicely, including jmol applets.
Correction: editing text blocks has some glitches.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
Hi Martin,
On 13 mei, 12:52, Martin Rubey martin.ru...@math.uni-hannover.de
wrote:
Waldek just pointed me to a package by Seiler:
http://axiom-wiki.newsynthesis.org/JetBundles
This looks like an interesting package. While I was doing my PhD
thesis I read many of W. Seiler's papers, and I
On 14 mei, 09:58, jvkersch joris.vankerscha...@gmail.com wrote:
Meanwhile, I will also collect
the resources that people have posted in this thread, on a Wiki page
or so.
See http://wiki.sagemath.org/tensorcalc
Thanks for all the interesting pointers!
All the best,
Joris
--
To post to
Hi,
While sorting dependencies for sage on gentoo we discovered that
zope-testbrowser is included in sagenb but we cannot find it being
used or called anywhere in sage (not just the notebook).
Are we missing something or should it be removed.
Francois
--
To post to this group, send an email to
We had a long standing problem in both Gentoo and Mandriva
with the following test
sage -t -force_lib devel/sage/sage/combinat/iet/strata.py
which is failing for us using the system python shipped with our
distributions.
As it turns out it is because the python shipped in our system includes
the
Hi,
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 7:04 PM, François Bissey f.r.bis...@massey.ac.nzwrote:
Hi,
While sorting dependencies for sage on gentoo we discovered that
zope-testbrowser is included in sagenb but we cannot find it being
used or called anywhere in sage (not just the notebook).
Are we missing
Hi!
I thought that when considering inexact fields (p-adic or real), a
coercion map should always be from higher precision to lower
precision.
For reals, this holds true:
sage: F1 = RealField(prec=20)
sage: F2 = RealField(prec=40)
sage: F1.has_coerce_map_from(F2)
True
sage:
Thanks all for the very interesting comments and links to publications
and CAS's.
I've implemented the algorithm using flint2's fmpz (multiprecision)
integer type for coefficients and at this stage for 62 bit integers
for exponents, only. (However it should be trivial to lift this
restriction.)
I found a table by NIST comparing sage with other software packages.
It's probably interesting for what they are looking for and I think
some entries are missing (feedback link at the bottom). Maybe worth
checking this out for the future of sage development or building our
own table like that?
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Harald Schilly harald.schi...@gmail.comwrote:
I found a table by NIST comparing sage with other software packages.
It's probably interesting for what they are looking for and I think
some entries are missing (feedback link at the bottom). Maybe worth
checking
On May 14, 4:32 pm, Fredrik Johansson fredrik.johans...@gmail.com
wrote:
It would be nice to have something like this for Sage (including information
about which library implements what, how generally etc), and not just for
special functions.
Yeahr, exactly. A good start is the constructions
With a bit of fiddling I can get the Fateman benchmark down to 53.5s
on sage.math (2.66 GHz Core2/penryn) making no assumptions about the
size of the output coefficients. I've checked that at least the output
poly has the right length and coeffs of the right size.
Adjusting for the clock speed,
On May 14, 2010, at 6:18 AM, Simon King wrote:
Hi!
I thought that when considering inexact fields (p-adic or real), a
coercion map should always be from higher precision to lower
precision.
For reals, this holds true:
sage: F1 = RealField(prec=20)
sage: F2 = RealField(prec=40)
sage:
On the other hand, I am unable to replicate the very sparse benchmark
unless I assume the result will fit in 2 limbs and allocate all the
output mpz's in advance, etc. Then I can basically replicate it. If I
use my generic no assumptions code it takes about 3s. I don't think I
can improve that
On May 14, 10:01 am, Harald Schilly harald.schi...@gmail.com wrote:
I found a table by NIST comparing sage with other software packages.
It's probably interesting for what they are looking for and I think
some entries are missing (feedback link at the bottom). Maybe worth
checking this out
On May 14, 2010, at 7:01 AM, Harald Schilly wrote:
I found a table by NIST comparing sage with other software packages.
It's probably interesting for what they are looking for and I think
some entries are missing (feedback link at the bottom).
E.g. we compute zeta(s) for s complex, but not
I am running some Monte Carlo simulations where I construct and pull
apart graphs. If I can get them to run faster, I can get my results
faster or with higher precision/confidence.
I can give details if desired, but most of the processor time is spent
in adding/deleting edges and vertices and
On 5/14/10 12:48 PM, Ryan Hinton wrote:
I am running some Monte Carlo simulations where I construct and pull
apart graphs. If I can get them to run faster, I can get my results
faster or with higher precision/confidence.
I can give details if desired, but most of the processor time is spent
in
Hi Robert!
On 14 Mai, 18:34, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
1. Do you agree this is a bug?
The p-adic fields are of capped precision, not set precision, but each
element remembers its own actual precision, so this is why the
coercion goes in that direction, and I
On 5/14/10 9:32 AM, Fredrik Johansson wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Harald Schilly
harald.schi...@gmail.com mailto:harald.schi...@gmail.com wrote:
I found a table by NIST comparing sage with other software packages.
It's probably interesting for what they are looking for and I
Would the following be what you want?
sage: R1.a = Zp(5,prec=20)[]
sage: R2 = Qp(5,prec=40)
sage: R2(1)+a
(1 + O(5^20))*a + (1 + O(5^40))
This results when one changes the merge method (and makes fraction
field functor and completion functor commute).
Cheers,
Simon
--
To post to this group,
Just in case, because I do not know enough the C backends to give you
a useful answer (watch out for Robert Miller !) :
Did you try to specify to use a Dense backend, if your graph is not
too large ?
Nathann
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
Quick reply inline below.
On May 12, 6:06 pm, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
These discuss (among other things) various approaches to the extra
constraints of the BipartiteGraph class. In particular, we agreed
that add_edge() can raise an exception in cases like this
On May 14, 1:54 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
Are you adding/deleting things using the python functions, or are you
using the Cython interface to the underlying CGraph structure? If you
are using python, you can probably speed up these operations by 100x or so.
My code
On May 14, 9:54 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On the other hand, I am unable to replicate the very sparse benchmark
unless I assume the result will fit in 2 limbs and allocate all the
output mpz's in advance, etc. Then I can basically replicate it. If I
use my generic no
Hi Bill,
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
If I make a couple of simplifications, namely assume that the output
fits into two limbs, and that none of the polynomials has length
2^32 - 1, etc, I get pretty good times, certainly better than reported
On 05/14/10 03:01 PM, Harald Schilly wrote:
I found a table by NIST comparing sage with other software packages.
It's probably interesting for what they are looking for and I think
some entries are missing (feedback link at the bottom). Maybe worth
checking this out for the future of sage
On 5/14/10 2:31 PM, Ryan Hinton wrote:
On May 14, 1:54 pm, Jason Groutjason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
Are you adding/deleting things using the python functions, or are you
using the Cython interface to the underlying CGraph structure? If you
are using python, you can probably speed up
The point is to avoid the python overhead in calling the add/delete
functions. So yes, you would need to write your calls to the cython
add/delete functions in Cython.
A simple example in the notebook:
%cython
from sage.graphs.base.c_graph cimport CGraph
from sage.all import graphs
G =
Hello everybody !!
I ran into an interesting graph construction, which happened to be...
easy as soon as one knew how to build a sum-free set ( a sum-free set
is a subset S of [1..n] such that no a,b in S are such that (a+b) \in
S ).
The problem being to find, given a integer n, a largest
2010/5/14 François Bissey f.r.bis...@massey.ac.nz:
We had a long standing problem in both Gentoo and Mandriva
with the following test
sage -t -force_lib devel/sage/sage/combinat/iet/strata.py
which is failing for us using the system python shipped with our
distributions.
As it turns out it
Hi folks,
This rc comes out earlier than expected, mainly because the issues
reported with Sage 4.4.2.alpha0 were promptly resolved. Thanks to
Wilfried Huss and Georg S. Weber. This rc built and pass all doctests
on sage.math, bsd.math, rosemary.math, and the Linux machines on
Skynet. Note that
Actually I wasn't allocating them in slabs. I had my threadsafe
version of the flint integer format turned on. The other version
allocates mpz's in slabs, but was broken. So.
having now fixed that. I do get the time down to about 2.1s on
sage.math. However, that's not noticeably faster
Oh, sorry. I did get confused. I didn't see you had SDMP-Core2
written in your benchmark table. I hadn't realised you were quoting
sdmp times.
Bill.
On 14 May, 21:19, Francesco Biscani bluesca...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bill,
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com
45 matches
Mail list logo
