Thank you for answering.
Yes I will do the update once I have a log in.
Unfortunately I am having a few issues getting VB to launch the sage
appliance without whinging. My audience requires a launch from VBox with no
error messages, (even if the messages do not matter!).
I am getting the
Hellooo !!!
Don't know if this is a bug, but sage numerically disagrees with
a paper about strong product of graphs.
I would trust Sage in that case :-D
I implemented |strong_product| and don't get the same products as sage
(C_4 bound passed, the Kneser one
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:45:28AM +0100, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Hellooo !!!
Don't know if this is a bug, but sage numerically disagrees with
a paper about strong product of graphs.
I would trust Sage in that case :-D
I implemented |strong_product| and don't
The sage session i gave was on vanilla sage, didn't include results from
my implementation.
Good. There's been a patch on this function very recently :
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13699
Is your version of Sage more recent than that ?
If so, as it looks like there's still a bug,
The build script is here if you want to look into the tsc error message:
https://bitbucket.org/vbraun/sage-virtual-appliance-buildscript
Though it seems this error message is bogous and will be downgraded to
devel-level in the kernel soon. So just doing nothing will eventually solve
it ;-)
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 11:27:21AM +0100, Nathann Cohen wrote:
The sage session i gave was on vanilla sage, didn't include results from
my implementation.
Good. There's been a patch on this function very recently :
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13699
Is your version of
Hellooo !!
I now have my own cherished computed in front of my hands :
sage: C4=graphs.CycleGraph(4);K=graphs.CompleteGraph(3)
sage: G=C4.strong_product(K)
sage: G.chromatic_number()
6
sage: F=K.strong_product(C4)
sage: F.chromatic_number()
6
God, I love those bugfixes The
Thanks for that, I have got to the bit where I am downloading the source
into a VMDK based FC17, which is the build of my current Sage server.
I will hijack your scripts if that is OK, I am not a cli expert and the
scripts will help enormously.
On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 10:50:16 UTC,
I don't know why this takes so long:
I have a field F (a snumber field of high degree, 288 in fact) and
want to create a 100x100 matrix over F from a list of 100 lists of 100
elements of F, while I will call entries. If I do
M = Matrix(entries)
which certainly works fine with smaller examples,
On 12/5/12 7:46 AM, John Cremona wrote:
I don't know why this takes so long:
I have a field F (a snumber field of high degree, 288 in fact) and
want to create a 100x100 matrix over F from a list of 100 lists of 100
elements of F, while I will call entries. If I do
M = Matrix(entries)
which
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:56:55 PM UTC, Jason Grout wrote:
On 12/5/12 7:46 AM, John Cremona wrote:
I don't know why this takes so long:
I have a field F (a snumber field of high degree, 288 in fact) and
want to create a 100x100 matrix over F from a list of 100 lists of 100
All the time is spent in Matrix_cyclo_dense.__init__ where a (nrows*ncols,
Q1092.degree()) rational matrix is constructed by first creating a list of
all nrows*ncols*Q1092.degree() entries:
elif isinstance(entries, list):
# This code could be made much faster using Cython,
On 2012-12-05, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
--=_Part_32_14834482.1354721238473
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:56:55 PM UTC, Jason Grout wrote:
On 12/5/12 7:46 AM, John Cremona wrote:
I don't know why this takes so long:
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 4:37:35 PM UTC, Volker Braun wrote:
All the time is spent in Matrix_cyclo_dense.__init__ where a (nrows*ncols,
Q1092.degree()) rational matrix is constructed by first creating a list of
all nrows*ncols*Q1092.degree() entries:
elif
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 5:00:00 PM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On 2012-12-05, John Cremona john.c...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
--=_Part_32_14834482.1354721238473
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:56:55 PM UTC, Jason
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 5:01:52 PM UTC, John Cremona wrote:
Thanks for the diagnosis! I had forgotten that there was special code
for matrices over cyclotomic fields, but it seems strange that the special
code makes creating such a matrix a lot slower. Perhaps I would be better
On 2012-12-05, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
--=_Part_659_23379607.1354727026909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 5:00:00 PM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On 2012-12-05, John Cremona john.c...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 9:08:13 AM UTC-8, Volker Braun wrote:
Of course fixing the cyclotomic matrix constructor would be another option
;-
In fact, John, please do! As your own loop assignment shows, the problem
you're experiencing is not inherent to Matrix_cyclo_dense, it's just
It seems that this is exactly the same problem of something I fixed for
general matrix construction earlier on. See:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10628
The problem is that the complexity of: sum(some_list_of_lists,[]) is
something like n^2*m where n = len(some_list_of_lists) and m
Le mercredi 5 décembre 2012 23:54:24 UTC+1, Maarten Derickx a écrit :
It seems that this is exactly the same problem of something I fixed for
general matrix construction earlier on. See:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10628
The problem is that the complexity of:
On 12/5/12 4:54 PM, Maarten Derickx wrote:
It seems that this is exactly the same problem of something I fixed for
general matrix construction earlier on. See:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10628
The problem is that the complexity of: sum(some_list_of_lists,[]) is
something like
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 2:59:59 PM UTC-8, Maarten Derickx wrote:
Maybe we should overwrite the sum() function such that it behaves
different for lists, since the command sum(entries,[]) looks much more
clear and intuitive then the for loop.
It seems like the top level sum in
22 matches
Mail list logo
