#9798: Accelerate Polyhedron constructor
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Reporter: vbraun | Owner: mhampton
Type: defect | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: geometry | Keywords:
Author: Volker Braun | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Changes (by dimpase):
* status: needs_review => needs_info
Comment:
Replying to [comment:3 vbraun]:
> I updated the spkg at
>
> http://www.stp.dias.ie/~vbraun/Sage/spkg/cddlib-094f.p8.spkg
>
> Now it includes a random number generator (taken from GNU libc), so the
`cddlib` output ordering should be the same on all platforms.
Well, I tested on PPC MacOSX, and sure enough I still get
sage -t -long "devel/sage/sage/schemes/generic/toric_divisor.py"
**********************************************************************
File
"/usr/local/src/sage/sage-4.6.alpha1/devel/sage/sage/schemes/generic/toric_divisor.py",
line 1522:
sage: supp.Vrepresentation()
Expected:
[A vertex at (-1, 1), A vertex at (0, 2), A vertex at (0, -1), A
vertex at (3, -1)]
Got:
[A vertex at (-1, 1), A vertex at (0, 2), A vertex at (3, -1), A
vertex at (0, -1)]
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
1 of 10 in __main__.example_35
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file
/Users/dima/.sage//tmp/.doctest_toric_divisor.py
[102.0 s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following tests failed:
sage -t -long "devel/sage/sage/schemes/generic/toric_divisor.py
Probably the GNU rng (in GSL, I suppose, I'd be mighty surprised if there
was one in libc!)
is not endianness-clean, or something like this.
Anyway, you should rather use Sage's rng facilities, at least they are
known to be
uniform accross all the Sage platforms.
>
> The prerequisite patch has been merged into Sage 4.6.alpha0, so now
would be a good time to review this ticket :-)
While I am at it, I don't get the initial motivation for the ticket -
computing vertex adjacencies (given a V-representation, say) ought to be
much faster than converting to H-representation, as it's a simple LP to
check whether two vertices are adjacent.
(well, I don't know whether this is in cdd, but I recall Komei mentioning
this as implemented, or to be implemented)
Dima
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9798#comment:4>
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.
