[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Hi Markus, thank you for your prompt reply! It worked. Here might not be the right place to ask this, but I have 2 doubts regarding the use of Groebner basis in Sage. I'm trying to compute the variety of an ideal (or at least part of it) and my thought was that if I computed the Groebner basis

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Hi David, my bad, I had forgotten to update the gist. I have just updated it, see [1]. There I used Singular (not libSingular), which usually should not make much of a difference for this kind of computation. However, note that there are some concerning speed issues with Singular/libSingular

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Hi Markus, can you explain to us how did you modify this in Singular? I tried running your snippet with Cyclic7 and cancelled it after an hour of computation. On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 1:53:18 AM UTC-5, Markus Wageringel wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 6. Dezember 2018 11:41:23 UTC+1 schrieb Bill

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Saturday, 15 December 2018 22:22:09 UTC+1, parisse wrote: > > > > Le samedi 15 décembre 2018 20:57:02 UTC+1, Bill Hart a écrit : >> >> >> >> And even if giac did all that, it is one of many projects doing >> multivariate polynomial arithmetic in Europe. There's also Trip, Piranha, >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le samedi 15 décembre 2018 20:57:02 UTC+1, Bill Hart a écrit : > > > > And even if giac did all that, it is one of many projects doing > multivariate polynomial arithmetic in Europe. There's also Trip, Piranha, > Factory, Pari/GP, Gap. I really don't think it is a valid argument that > just

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Saturday, 15 December 2018 18:19:53 UTC+1, parisse wrote: > > Bill, my feeling is that part of ODK money was used to improve > multivariate polynomial arithmetic implementations precisely in a domain > where Giac behaves well (and maybe I should emphasize that unlike almost > all other

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Bill, my feeling is that part of ODK money was used to improve multivariate polynomial arithmetic implementations precisely in a domain where Giac behaves well (and maybe I should emphasize that unlike almost all other CAS, Giac is a library, i.e. is interoperable with any software that can

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Saturday, 15 December 2018 17:10:10 UTC+1, Bill Hart wrote: > > > > On Sunday, 9 December 2018 11:22:48 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > I cannot comment on why certain implementations did not use Giac code, >> I am not involved in this work. >> > > I am involved in that, > I should

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Sunday, 9 December 2018 11:22:48 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: I cannot comment on why certain implementations did not use Giac code, > I am not involved in this work. > I am involved in that, but I believe there may be some misconceptions here. The implementations we are doing for ODK

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Friday, 7 December 2018 21:41:41 UTC+1, Markus Wageringel wrote: > > Am Freitag, 7. Dezember 2018 13:07:45 UTC+1 schrieb Bill Hart: >> >> How many physical cores do you have on the machine (not logical cores), >> and how many CPU sockets and what is the cache structure? (I assume it is >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Giac source code has been updated, with the following (much faster) timings for gbasis computation on Q server 32 processors Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v3 @ 2.60GHz, 64G of RAM 16 threads [CPU time, real time], 4 threads [CPU, real], 1 thread cyclic8 : [43.37,11.25], [31.82,12.15], 26.12 (48

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Got cyclic9 on Q with 16 threads in 45 minutes real time (about 6h and 20 minutes CPU time). I made a few changes to the way parallelization is called, and got some > progress. Now cyclic9 on Q takes a little more than 4h with 1 thread, 1h41 > real time/4h40 CPU with 6 threads (probably not

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Giac on Geogebra SVN The giac tarball is self-contained for compiling on gnu systems. The stable version corresponding to the latest debian packages is giac_stable.tgz

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 06:07, parisse wrote: > > > Le dimanche 9 décembre 2018 20:44:30 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : >> >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 1:42 PM parisse >> wrote: >> > >> > Efficient code does not depend on how you handle it (git, svn or >> tarballs or whatever). >> >> Efficiency of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le dimanche 9 décembre 2018 20:44:30 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 1:42 PM parisse > wrote: > > > > Efficient code does not depend on how you handle it (git, svn or > tarballs or whatever). > > Efficiency of handling code does depend upon this; fixing a trivial

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 1:42 PM parisse wrote: > > Efficient code does not depend on how you handle it (git, svn or tarballs or > whatever). Efficiency of handling code does depend upon this; fixing a trivial C++ issue in Giac takes 10 times longer (and takes 10 times more time and effort from

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Efficient code does not depend on how you handle it (git, svn or tarballs or whatever). And I don't think different practices is the real reason why Giac was/is mostly ignored here. After having done a few tests, I think I know why my code on Q is slower with more threads (if the number of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:05 AM parisse wrote: > > > > Le samedi 8 décembre 2018 23:44:32 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 5:03 PM parisse wrote: >> >> > and even if I was, I don't want to depend from google or any company for >> > something like that (the risk of IP

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le samedi 8 décembre 2018 23:44:32 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 5:03 PM parisse > wrote: > > > and even if I was, I don't want to depend from google or any company > for something like that (the risk of IP problems is much too high > > IP problems while working

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 5:03 PM parisse wrote: > Le vendredi 7 décembre 2018 12:15:56 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : >> >> you can certainly get free cloud resources from Google, to spin out >> Linux (and not only) VMs with many cores, they have a faculty >> programme like this. >> I've been

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le vendredi 7 décembre 2018 12:15:56 UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : > > you can certainly get free cloud resources from Google, to spin out > Linux (and not only) VMs with many cores, they have a faculty > programme like this. > I've been using it since Sept. > https://cloud.google.com/edu/

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Am Freitag, 7. Dezember 2018 13:07:45 UTC+1 schrieb Bill Hart: > > How many physical cores do you have on the machine (not logical cores), > and how many CPU sockets and what is the cache structure? (I assume it is > at least 16 physical cores, but I'm asking more because this sort of thing >

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Friday, 7 December 2018 07:53:18 UTC+1, Markus Wageringel wrote: While there will be some overhead due to the conversion from and to Sage, > it is the same in both cases. In fact, I observe similar times with the > native Giac that is installed into the Sage environment, when applied to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:10 AM parisse wrote: > > > > Le vendredi 7 décembre 2018 07:53:18 UTC+1, Markus Wageringel a écrit : >> >> >> While there will be some overhead due to the conversion from and to Sage, it >> is the same in both cases. In fact, I observe similar times with the native >>

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le vendredi 7 décembre 2018 07:53:18 UTC+1, Markus Wageringel a écrit : > > > While there will be some overhead due to the conversion from and to Sage, > it is the same in both cases. In fact, I observe similar times with the > native Giac that is installed into the Sage environment, when

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Am Donnerstag, 6. Dezember 2018 11:41:23 UTC+1 schrieb Bill Hart: > All the other systems are using modular methods here, so Roman use the > modstd library (the command is modStd) in Singular to get those timings. > Indeed cyclic7 over Q takes about 20s on my laptop in Singular using this >

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le mercredi 5 décembre 2018 23:44:43 UTC+1, Markus Wageringel a écrit : > > Am Samstag, 24. November 2018 23:11:26 UTC+1 schrieb parisse: >> >> >> Giac supports double revlex ordering, this is the order used by the >> eliminate command of Giac. Geogebra has many examples of eliminate commands

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Wednesday, 5 December 2018 23:44:43 UTC+1, Markus Wageringel wrote: > > > I am a bit surprised about some of the Singular results being a lot worse > than reported in [5], cyclic7 in particular. Perhaps starting this > computation with some different options can help here. > > > [5]

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Am Samstag, 24. November 2018 23:11:26 UTC+1 schrieb parisse: > > > Giac supports double revlex ordering, this is the order used by the > eliminate command of Giac. Geogebra has many examples of eliminate commands > there https://dev.geogebra.org/trac/browser/trunk/geogebra/giac/src/test >

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

I've been back in touch with Christian Eder (thanks for assuring me he's alive, Bill :-)) and he's happy to support an attempt to get the code into Sage. He's working on extending the code to other fields & the like. I will definitely apply for the afore-mentioned coding spring, to add at

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le mardi 27 novembre 2018 12:00:16 UTC+1, Simon King a écrit : > > Hi Bernard, > > On 2018-11-27, parisse > wrote: > > I meant a more efficient elimination order like double revlex. > > Actually I've never heard of that. The only reference I could find with > duckduckgo was the phrase >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Hi Bernard, On 2018-11-27, parisse wrote: > I meant a more efficient elimination order like double revlex. Actually I've never heard of that. The only reference I could find with duckduckgo was the phrase "Fast Gröbner basis f4 algorithm (revlex order and double revlex for elimination),

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

I meant a more efficient elimination order like double revlex. Le lundi 26 novembre 2018 22:04:56 UTC+1, Simon King a écrit : > > Hi! > > > What is your definition of "elimination order"? If I understand > correctly, lex *is* an elimination order. > > Best regards, > Simon > > -- You

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Hi! On 2018-11-26, parisse wrote: > not as complete: a quick look indicates that monomial ordering supported > are revlex and lex (no elimination, this is probably not hard to add), and > coefficients must belong to Z/pZ (support for Q would require more work...) What is your definition of

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le lundi 26 novembre 2018 17:16:16 UTC+1, Bill Hart a écrit : > > > > > From his recent talks, his implementation is nowadays more than > competitive. > I confirm that his timings are very good: for example almost 3 times faster than Giac for cyclic9 modular. On the other hand, the

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Saturday, 24 November 2018 20:25:13 UTC+1, john_perry_usm wrote: > > I walk into this discussion with some hesitancy, but Christian Eder has > developed a rather efficient F4 algorithm. [1] I know it works and is quite > fast, though I haven't compared it to the implementations mentioned

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Le vendredi 23 novembre 2018 23:53:51 UTC+1, Markus Wageringel a écrit : > > Thanks for the feedback everyone. > > Am Donnerstag, 22. November 2018 09:53:43 UTC+1 schrieb parisse: >> >> Did you make some comparisons with Giac ? >> >> Some benchmarks from Roman Pearce and my own tests, about 2

Re: [sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 at 19:25, john_perry_usm wrote: > I walk into this discussion with some hesitancy, but Christian Eder has > developed a rather efficient F4 algorithm. [1] I know it works and is quite > fast, though I haven't compared it to the implementations mentioned above. >

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

I walk into this discussion with some hesitancy, but Christian Eder has developed a rather efficient F4 algorithm. [1] I know it works and is quite fast, though I haven't compared it to the implementations mentioned above. Unfortunately, I haven't heard from him in a while after he went off to

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Am Donnerstag, 22. November 2018 09:53:43 UTC+1 schrieb parisse: > > Did you make some comparisons with Giac ? > > Some benchmarks from Roman Pearce and my own tests, about 2 years old. > I have not done any comparisons, mainly because I cannot do anything about

[sage-devel] Re: A Sage interface for FGb (Gröbner bases)

Did you make some comparisons with Giac ? Some benchmarks from Roman Pearce and my own tests, about 2 years old. Roman used an Intel Core i5 4570 3.2 GHz with 8 GB DDR3-1600 running 64-bit Linux (4 cores, 4 threads, 6M cache, turbo 3.2 -> 3.6GHz). I also checked Giac on my Mac (Core i5 2.9Ghz,