I asked in the Singular forum, how to change the exponent size for Singular:
https://www.singular.uni-kl.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10=2576
Is it transparent for overflow detection?
>
I don't understand the question.
My question is, does overflow detection work correcly with different
exponent
I can only answer one of your questions.
On Saturday, 11 February 2017 17:16:29 UTC+1, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
>
> By default, Singular uses 16 bit exponents. But it is perfectly capable of
>> working with exponents up to 64 bits. That will be slower of course.
>>
>
> How to change this? Is it
>
> By default, Singular uses 16 bit exponents. But it is perfectly capable of
> working with exponents up to 64 bits. That will be slower of course.
>
How to change this? Is it runtime or compile-time? Is it transparent for
overflow detection?
I guess it isn't easy for Sage to change the
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 8:54:27 PM UTC-5, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
>
>
> >If someone who knows what they are talking about [...]
>
> to give a precise answer to the question on
> https://ask.sagemath.org/
>
>If someone who knows what they are talking about [...]
to give a precise answer to the question on
https://ask.sagemath.org/
as far as I know, limiting to 16 bit exponents for _input_ was introduced
> to prevent undetected overflows;
> it must be one of the tickets
>>
>>
>>
If someone who knows what they are talking about (i.e., not me) could
mention this on the ask.sagemath question that would be really helpful.
as far as I know, limiting to 16 bit exponents for _input_ was introduced
to prevent undetected overflows;
it must be one of the tickets
https://www.singular.uni-kl.de:8005/trac/ticket/630
https://www.singular.uni-kl.de:8005/trac/ticket/631
https://www.singular.uni-kl.de:8005/trac/ticket/696
Probably closely related:
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/36480/restricted-usability-of-singular-after-upgrade/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> This should create the polynomial x, then try to raise it to the power
>>> of 2^30, which is about a billion I think.
>>>
>>> Along the way it will use the FFT, which is a bit of a memory hog.
>>>
>>> One day we ought to fix the powering code to handle monomials
>>>
On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 15:18:26 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:47:23 AM UTC, Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 10 October 2016 12:31:25 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 4:48:31 PM UTC, Bill Hart wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 09:33:57 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
> Yes it is a feature of the Singular 4 update that Singular and Sage work
> by default with 16 bit exponents on 32 and 64 bit platform by default.
> If only all of of you had read carefully the 543 comments of the update
>
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:47:23 AM UTC, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, 10 October 2016 12:31:25 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 4:48:31 PM UTC, Bill Hart wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 9 October 2016 18:08:29 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
Yes it is a feature of the Singular 4 update that Singular and Sage work by
default with 16 bit exponents on 32 and 64 bit platform by default.
If only all of of you had read carefully the 543 comments of the update
ticket and remembered this tcomment
On Monday, 10 October 2016 12:31:25 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 4:48:31 PM UTC, Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 9 October 2016 18:08:29 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 3:35:57 PM UTC, Bill Hart wrote:
See also the comments in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12589
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 4:48:31 PM UTC, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 9 October 2016 18:08:29 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 3:35:57 PM UTC, Bill Hart wrote:
>>>
>>> By default, Singular uses 16 bit exponents. But it is perfectly capable
>>>
On Sunday, 9 October 2016 18:08:29 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 3:35:57 PM UTC, Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>> By default, Singular uses 16 bit exponents. But it is perfectly capable
>> of working with exponents up to 64 bits. That will be slower of course.
>>
>>
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 3:35:57 PM UTC, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> By default, Singular uses 16 bit exponents. But it is perfectly capable of
> working with exponents up to 64 bits. That will be slower of course.
>
> why? I presume arithmetic on 16-bit integers is not faster than on 32-bit,
or
Note that Hans has fixed the fact that Singular wasn't reporting this as an
overflow.
On Sunday, 9 October 2016 17:35:57 UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> By default, Singular uses 16 bit exponents. But it is perfectly capable of
> working with exponents up to 64 bits. That will be slower of course.
By default, Singular uses 16 bit exponents. But it is perfectly capable of
working with exponents up to 64 bits. That will be slower of course.
I guess it isn't easy for Sage to change the relevant ring upon overflow to
one using 64 bit exponents.
I can't say whether it would be easy or hard
20 matches
Mail list logo
