#853: Add a pslq implementation to Sage
--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Reporter: was | Owner: was
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-wishlist
Component: number theory | Keywords:
Author: Paul Zimmermann, Alex Ghitza | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: David Kirkby | Merged:
Work_issues: need advice on interface |
--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Comment(by zimmerma):
I did a comparison of my PSLQ implementation (within Sage) with fpLLL with
a knapsack matrix.
With Bailey's "node6" example, fpLLL is 14 times faster:
{{{
sage: m = matrix(9,10)
sage: for i in range(9):
m[i,i]=1
sage: for i in range(9):
m[i,9]=ZZ(num_list[i]*RealField(200)(2)^180)//2^10
sage: L=m.LLL()
sage: L.row(0)
(-480, 1920, 0, -16, -255, -660, 840, 160, -360, 219687)
sage: p.coefficients()
(480, -1920, 0, 16, 255, 660, -840, -160, 360)
sage: %timeit L=m.LLL()
625 loops, best of 3: 1.41 ms per loop
sage: %timeit p=PSLQ(num_list, prec=167)
25 loops, best of 3: 19.8 ms per loop
}}}
Thus apart from historical reasons (or comparison with fpLLL) I don't see
any point to add PSLQ in Sage. Or the default PSLQ mode should be to call
fpLLL. However maybe I'm biased because
fpLLL was designed by a former student of mine.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/853#comment:15>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
