I was intending to make the same suggestion myself (concerning Allan
Steele's method). When I read Allan's paper on this several years ago
I made a few suggestions to him on what I thought at the time might be
improvements -- which I will try to recover if this suggestion is
followed up.
Hi,
I'm working on some computations with multi-variable polynomials over QQ. I'm
finding some very weird performance characteristics. For instance, I have
two polynomials which I want to divide one by the other and have an element
of the fraction field. This requires computing a gcd
On 9/19/07, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was intending to make the same suggestion myself (concerning Allan
Steele's method). When I read Allan's paper on this several years ago
I made a few suggestions to him on what I thought at the time might be
improvements -- which I will
On 9/19/07, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/19/07, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was intending to make the same suggestion myself (concerning Allan
Steele's method). When I read Allan's paper on this several years ago
I made a few suggestions to him on what I
Thanks Michael,
The bug only pops up after about an hour of computation. The code is
http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~voight/tr_data.spyx
http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~voight/totallyreal.py
and what I ran was
sage: load tr_data.spyx
sage: load totallyreal.py
sage: time
On 9/19/07, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm working on some computations with multi-variable polynomials over QQ. I'm
finding some very weird performance characteristics. For instance, I have
two polynomials which I want to divide one by the other and have an element
of the
On 9/19/07, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of curiosity do you know anybody who has ever actually
made genuine use of Allan's QQbar implementation in Magma?
I've played around with it myself, but never found a way to use
it for anything interesting. I'm curious.
Answer:
On 9/19/07, John Voight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Michael,
The bug only pops up after about an hour of computation. The code is
http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~voight/tr_data.spyx
http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~voight/totallyreal.py
and what I ran was
sage: load tr_data.spyx
sage: load
On 9/19/07, PhantomDuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am complete Sage newbie. The question is, that is it possible to add
html-code to Sage web-browser interface?
You can click edit, then paste arbitray HTML code anywhere in the notebook
body, and it will render as HTML.
The goal would be
On Sep 19, 6:46 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/19/07, John Voight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Michael,
Hello,
The bug only pops up after about an hour of computation. The code is
http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~voight/tr_data.spyx
I remember a few years ago (when working with Enrique Gonzales on some
modular form programs) spending ages finding a bug in a Magma program
which gave different results to an earlier Mathematica program. It
turned out that we were assuming that
sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-2)=sqrt(2)
but
For numerical people -- thoughts about this?
-- Forwarded message --
From: dmitrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sep 19, 2007 11:04 AM
Subject: are you interested in SciKits.openopt - new numerical
optimization soft?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hallo mr. William Stein,
I have already
Dear Hans and sage-devel readers,
As I wrote on sage-devel a bit earlier, I had some polynomials that were
causing singular gcd to slow down dramatically. I had thought this was
inconsistent, but upon more investigation it seems very consistent (on two
different computers).
Here's some
Hi everyone,
I'm gradually moving some of my computations from Mathematica to SAGE.
One of the things that I use quite a bit in Mathematica is the
Combinatorica package, which provides quite a lot of graph operations.
So this morning I went through and compared the sage graph library with
the
On 9/19/07, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I wrote on sage-devel a bit earlier, I had some polynomials that were
causing singular gcd to slow down dramatically. I had thought this was
inconsistent, but upon more investigation it seems very consistent (on two
different computers).
On 9/19/07, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm gradually moving some of my computations from Mathematica to SAGE.
One of the things that I use quite a bit in Mathematica is the
Combinatorica package, which provides quite a lot of graph operations.
So this morning I went through and
Well, to summarize:
John's code doesn't leak memory, Sage doesn't outright leak any memory
(well, more than usual, the is still some possibly lost and still
reachable. After about an hour on sage.math we are approaching about
1GB of memory consumption. I am not sure how much longer the
Hi Will,
Hey, that code is really pretty. Mind if I include it in Sage soon? That
would make it easier for other people to try it out and contribute back.
Thanks! I'd be thrilled. Still working hard on optimization, so
since it's only a secondary algorithm so to speak, I'd like to wait
On 9/19/07, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John's code doesn't leak memory, Sage doesn't outright leak any memory
(well, more than usual, the is still some possibly lost and still
reachable. After about an hour on sage.math we are approaching about
1GB of memory consumption. I am not sure
Hi Will,
Hey, that code is really pretty. Mind if I include it in Sage soon? That
would make it easier for other people to try it out and contribute back.
Thanks! I'd be thrilled. Still working hard on optimization, so
since it's only a secondary algorithm so to speak, I'd like to wait
On Sep 19, 9:55 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/19/07, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I wrote on sage-devel a bit earlier, I had some polynomials that were
causing singular gcd to slow down dramatically. I had thought this was
inconsistent, but upon more
William Stein wrote:
On 9/19/07, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd also like to post it somewhere so that people with much more
experience than I can comment and/or implement whatever they want.
Where is the most appropriate place to put it? The wiki? If the wiki
or the trac is the
Hi Michael,
John's code doesn't leak memory, Sage doesn't outright leak any memory
(well, more than usual, the is still some possibly lost and still
reachable. After about an hour on sage.math we are approaching about
1GB of memory consumption. I am not sure how much longer the
computation
On 9/19/07, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be wonderful to have this converted into latex so it can
be added to the graph theory chapter of the reference manual.
Would you like to have comparisons like this added to the manual? I
thought we had a wiki page devoted to
On 9/19/07, mabshoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, we had
some more discussion in #sage-devel and rpw posted an
interesting link:
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/users/allan/gcdcomp.html
In summary: Singular's multivariate GCD is slower by orders of
magnitude. Magma's algorithms are described at:
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 15:55, William Stein wrote:
Just for clarity, why not just compute the GCD with mathematica?
Well, I am doing that. I assumed that I had found a slow corner case that
singular folks would want to fix. I'm not entirely sure that this point how
small that corner
More precisely -- what is the RAM *usage*?? Not the theoretical
requirement. SAGE caching already computed fields -- these
are supposed to be weakref's, so get cleaned up when they aren't
referenced, but I've had problems with that.In particular,
if you comment out the three lines that
On 9/19/07, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 15:55, William Stein wrote:
Just for clarity, why not just compute the GCD with mathematica?
Well, I am doing that.
I didn't mean for your program -- just for benchmarking purposes.
I assumed that I had
On Sep 19, 4:22 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/19/07, mabshoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, we had
some more discussion in #sage-devel and rpw posted an
interesting link:
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/users/allan/gcdcomp.html
In summary: Singular's multivariate GCD is
If there are places in you code where you create some temporary object
you should delete it after you are done with it - that might help the
situation. We can also use a heap stack profiler to have a closer
look.
That's probably what is going on. My Cython routine creates and
returns a
I have no ideas, but would like to mention the OS
constraint solver eclipse http://eclipse.crosscoreop.com/
probably belongs to the same family of programs.
This was mentioned at the GAP conference but I've forgotten
why now. (Maybe Marc Roeder used it?)
On 9/19/07, William Stein [EMAIL
On 9/19/07, John Voight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sage: time enumerate_totallyreal_fields(8,14^8)
and after about an hour I got the error message.
What is RAM usage like? It's possible it ran out.
The RAM required for the algorithm is trivial. In the cases I'm
running, very few
On Sep 19, 10:52 pm, Jack Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:22 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP
Who wants to be a hero -- like Jon Bober and number of partitions --
and implement this for Sage, so that multivariate GCD's aren't
embarrassingly slow in Sage
On Sep 19, 10:56 pm, John Voight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there are places in you code where you create some temporary object
you should delete it after you are done with it - that might help the
situation. We can also use a heap stack profiler to have a closer
look.
That's
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 16:22, William Stein wrote:
I think those timings are way out of date, since Singular 3 seems
to be *very* fast at mod p multivariate GCD computation, even
though it sucks over QQ. Check out this paper:
http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/CAG/papers/brown.ps
Overall, I was very impressed with how much functionality is in SAGE,
but not in Mathematica. Of course, there is still quite a bit of work
implementing the rest of the Combinatorica functions in SAGE.
Briefly looking through the Combinatorica documentation, I think I
have everything (and
On 9/19/07, Mike Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Overall, I was very impressed with how much functionality is in SAGE,
but not in Mathematica. Of course, there is still quite a bit of work
implementing the rest of the Combinatorica functions in SAGE.
Briefly looking through the
William Stein wrote:
On 9/19/07, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be wonderful to have this converted into latex so it can
be added to the graph theory chapter of the reference manual.
Would you like to have comparisons like this added to the manual? I
thought we had a wiki
Mike Hansen wrote:
Overall, I was very impressed with how much functionality is in SAGE,
but not in Mathematica. Of course, there is still quite a bit of work
implementing the rest of the Combinatorica functions in SAGE.
Briefly looking through the Combinatorica documentation, I think I
William Stein wrote:
On 9/19/07, Jaap Spies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William,
After the discussion in the thread 'Calculus' I added the function
irange(start, stop, step=1) to misc/misc.py.
I think this could be a good replacement of the operator '..'
known in Maple and Matlab. Better
On Sep 19, 10:08 pm, John Voight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Michael,
John's code doesn't leak memory, Sage doesn't outright leak any memory
(well, more than usual, the is still some possibly lost and still
reachable. After about an hour on sage.math we are approaching about
1GB of
On Sep 19, 2007, at 1:56 PM, John Voight wrote:
If there are places in you code where you create some temporary
object
you should delete it after you are done with it - that might help the
situation. We can also use a heap stack profiler to have a closer
look.
That's probably what is
On 9/19/07, Jaap Spies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
def srange(a,b=None,step=1, include_endpoint=False):
What does your irange do differently? And why the i?
Does it mean include endpoints? That makes sense
actually.
I'm somehow not amused with your answer. Nevertheless I answered
to
I thought I'd make at least one of the graph functions mentioned in
another thread before quitting for the day. However, which is deemed
better: to make these functions for SAGE or to make them for NetworkX
and then write the wrapper for SAGE?
Thanks,
Jason
Hi Robert!
Thanks very much for your message.
That's probably what is going on. My Cython routine creates and
returns a list of integers: it's begins as a cdef int[], and
apparently it doesn't like it when I just return that, so I just do
something silly like
return [ self.a[i] for
Hi,
This is a reminder that the next SAGE Bug Day 3-- a very successful
event started by Martin Albrecht -- is tomorrow (Thursday, Sept 20):
http://wiki.sagemath.org/bug3
SAGE Bug Squash Day 3
-
The event will take place on THURSDAY September 20th, 2007
On 9/19/07, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought I'd make at least one of the graph functions mentioned in
another thread before quitting for the day. However, which is deemed
better: to make these functions for SAGE or to make them for NetworkX
and then write the wrapper for SAGE?
On Sep 19, 2007, at 6:26 PM, John Voight wrote:
Hi Robert!
Thanks very much for your message.
That's probably what is going on. My Cython routine creates and
returns a list of integers: it's begins as a cdef int[], and
apparently it doesn't like it when I just return that, so I just do
I am rather fond of the '..' operator, though I can see why people
wouldn't want to add it as an official part of sage. This got me to
thinking--what if there were a way to have my own preprocessor (in a
.sagerc file or something) for shortcuts that I personally want. I
envision that it would
On 9/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am rather fond of the '..' operator, though I can see why people
wouldn't want to add it as an official part of sage. This got me to
I think the decision about whether or not to include something like
this is definitely not decided yet.
My personal opinion is that SAGE should distinguish between an abstact
number field and an embedded number field right from the start.
An abstract number field should be basically a number field defined by
a polynomial with no embedding specified. If you like, it can be
thought of as David
Sorry, I had L(sqrt(x+1)[1]) above at a certain point. This should of
course be sqrt(L(x+1))[1].
Bill.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more
Ah, yeah, I only want an algebraic closure of Q. Of course an
algebraic closure of an algebraic number field K doesn't give you
something different, since K contains Q anyway. But hopefully some of
the rest of what I say still makes some sense.
Magma also offers the algebraic closure of a finite
On Sep 19, 2007, at 9:20 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
My personal opinion is that SAGE should distinguish between an abstact
number field and an embedded number field right from the start.
I agree, and like David Harvey's suggestion of how to handle this.
An abstract number field should be
54 matches
Mail list logo
