Hi,
Is there a way to compute Groebner bases and varieties in parallel on
multiple processors or in a cluster?
Thanks.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
On Nov 24, 12:21 am, vpv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
Is there a way to compute Groebner bases and varieties in parallel on
multiple processors or in a cluster?
What exactly do you want to do
(a) compute the Gbasis of some ideal with different strategies and/or
programs at the same
Thanks for your reply, Michael! Please see more details about my
problem below:
Let 'e' designate a system of boolean equations. Then I have the
following code:
I=ideal(e)
G=I.groebner_basis()
I2=ideal(G)
V = I2.variety()
'e' is composed of approx. 1000 quadratic equations in approx. 500
Hello,
given a matrix over CDF I would like to obtain its real and imaginary
parts.
I know how to write my own function to do this, but I was wondering if
there is one built-in. Couldn't see anything in the docs.
Many thanks,
Bill (using SAGE version 3.0.5).
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:19:55 +0100
Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
sage: e = x+y
sage: e.subs(x=y)
2*y
but not with Piecewise:
sage: var(h H x y)
(h, H, x, y)
sage: u = Piecewise([((0, h), x/h), ((h, H), 1)])
sage:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
sage: e = x+y
sage: e.subs(x=y)
2*y
but not with Piecewise:
sage: var(h H x y)
(h, H, x, y)
sage: u = Piecewise([((0, h), x/h), ((h, H), 1)])
I don't think
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:25 AM, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
sage: e = x+y
sage: e.subs(x=y)
2*y
but not with Piecewise:
sage: var(h H x y)
(h, H,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
sage: e = x+y
sage: e.subs(x=y)
2*y
but not with Piecewise:
sage: var(h H x y)
(h, H,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:15 PM, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:25 AM, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
sage: e = x+y
sage:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:04:53 +0100
Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
when I use regular expressions, I can use .subs():
sage:
Bill wrote:
Hello,
given a matrix over CDF I would like to obtain its real and imaginary
parts.
I know how to write my own function to do this, but I was wondering if
there is one built-in. Couldn't see anything in the docs.
I don't think there is a built-in function for it, but you can
I'm not sure if this is a bug or just something I'm misunderstanding,
but for 2D graphics I can write code like this.
g = Graphics()
g += line( [ [-1,-1], [1,1] ] )
g.show()
But in 3D if I do either
g = Graphics()
g += sphere( (1,1,1), 2 )
g.show()
or
g =
I'm interested in toric varieties and calculating integral points in
polytopes. I was told that polymake was one of the polyhedral
programs around which is why I asked about SAGE compatibility.
Honestly, I haven't looked at the native polyhedra features but I will
certainly do that. There's
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Burcin Erocal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:04:53 +0100
Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:25 PM, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks Jason,
I opted to use Re(X) = (X + X.conjugate())/2 in the end. I don't know
enough
about Python's interpreter to know whether this is more or less
efficient than
your suggestion. Thank you for the info about the new version, I shall
upgrade
soon.
Will.
On Nov 24, 3:01 pm, Jason Grout
OK, as I said I am actively adding functionality to the sage-native
stuff, so please let me know what you need. Sage also includes the
PALP package by default, which can compute interior integral points.
I have not added that functionality into my Polyhedron class but I
will; as it is there are
This has bothered me too and I think it is a bug. I have made it trac
ticket #4604. It shouldn't be too hard to fix.
As a workaround I am currently doing something like:
g = point3d((0,0,0),opacity = 0)
which gives you an invisible point at the origin.
-M. Hampton
On Nov 24, 9:47 am,
Dear Sage Team,
I know that one can doc test exceptions by
sage: stupid_code()
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
TypeError: error message RTFM
My problem: The error message will not always be the same. It is an
error raised by the Singular interface, the error message will
On Nov 24, 11:02 am, Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Sage Team,
Hi Simon,
I know that one can doc test exceptions by
sage: stupid_code()
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
TypeError: error message RTFM
My problem: The error message will not always be the
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Chris Fronk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a bug or just something I'm misunderstanding,
but for 2D graphics I can write code like this.
g = Graphics()
g += line( [ [-1,-1], [1,1] ] )
g.show()
But in 3D if I do either
g = Graphics()
g
Hi Michael,
thank you, but I am afraid it did not work.
Now, my doc test is
sage: singular('%sI'%(H.prefix))
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
TypeError: Singular error:
? ... is undefined
? error occurred in STDIN line ...: `def ...;`
and here is what the doc
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm interested in toric varieties and calculating integral points in
polytopes. I was told that polymake was one of the polyhedral
programs around which is why I asked about SAGE compatibility.
Honestly, I haven't
On Nov 24, 2:04 am, vpv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your reply, Michael! Please see more details about my
problem below:
Let 'e' designate a system of boolean equations. Then I have the
following code:
I=ideal(e)
G=I.groebner_basis()
I2=ideal(G)
V = I2.variety()
'e' is
Unfortunately not. I have seen Buchberger's algorithm implemented with
parallel reduction on a shared memory system with allegedly decent
performance with up to 8 CPUs in a shared memory system (i.e. all in
one big box, not a cluster), but the implementation was in Java and is
not integrated
On Nov 24, 12:58 pm, Martin Albrecht [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
Unfortunately not. I have seen Buchberger's algorithm implemented with
parallel reduction on a shared memory system with allegedly decent
performance with up to 8 CPUs in a shared memory system (i.e. all in
one big box,
Hi,
Is there a specific way to add rules (and apply them) to rewrite
expressions in Sage?
Such as, log(a)-log(b) = log(a/b)
I need this (and others) in order to properly compare the integration
results from Sage to the list of integrals I have. I'm trying to put
together a suite of integration
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I looked but couldn't find how to create a set of linked worksheets
like the tutorial. I.e. if you look at:
http://localhost:8000/doc/live/tut/node8.html
.. you see links between the worksheets (previous up next and so on)
Is
On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
Is there a specific way to add rules (and apply them) to rewrite
expressions in Sage?
Such as, log(a)-log(b) = log(a/b)
I need this (and others) in order to
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:45 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
Is there a specific way to add rules (and apply them) to rewrite
expressions in Sage?
Such as,
On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
I can easily run timing comparisons between maxima and FriCAS, but
because
of how sympy does things (with its separate variables), I'll have
to run
them separately. Comparing maxima and FriCAS, the timings are pretty
close on
both for
Hi,
I want to be able to recreate the functionalities of webMathematica on
my website, as demostrated here http://www.quickmath.com .
Will Sage do this, and if not, can you recommend some free/open source
software that will, please?
Cheers,
heebie.
On Nov 24, 6:17 pm, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
I can easily run timing comparisons between maxima and FriCAS, but
because
of how sympy does things (with its separate variables), I'll have
to run
them separately.
On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:21 PM, mabshoff wrote:
We have a timeit doctest framework that is supposed to hunt for speed
regressions. It is merged in 3.2, but we need infrastructure to
compare the output from several runs.
But I guess you are asking if timeit('foo') could return the time so
heebie wrote:
Hi,
I want to be able to recreate the functionalities of webMathematica on
my website, as demostrated here http://www.quickmath.com .
Sage has a much more powerful, full online notebook interface. See
http://www.sagenb.org to sign up for a free account to try it out.
If
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I could parse the output, but I thought someone might have done
it and it sounds like the timeit doctest framework might do it.
Where can I find this in the source so I can see how it is doing it?
You can do this in
On Nov 24, 7:03 pm, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
You can do this in 3.2:
sage: s = timeit.eval(2+3)
sage: s
625 loops, best of 3: 942 ns per loop
sage: s.stats
(625, 3, 3, 942.230224609375, 'ns')
The code is in
On Nov 24, 2008, at 10:07 PM, mabshoff wrote:
You should consider creating one or a couple large files with the
integrals for doctesting and stuff them into $SAGE_ROOT/devel/tests.
Hopefully it can be arranged to feed the input into Maxima/Axiom/
Maple/
MMA/sympy and so on and compare the
Hi,
If I have the following example Sage code,
var('x,a,b')
# Test 1
f1 = 1/(a*x+b)
aa = f1.integrate(x)
bb = 1/a*log(a*x+b)
aa_cmp = bb-aa # Should be zero
sage_time_f1 = timeit.eval('f1.integrate(x)')
friCAS_time_f1 = timeit.eval('axiom.integrate(f1,x)')
How do I write it as a test?
The
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
I can easily run timing comparisons between maxima and FriCAS, but
because
of how sympy does things (with its separate variables), I'll have
to run
them separately.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
If I have the following example Sage code,
var('x,a,b')
# Test 1
f1 = 1/(a*x+b)
aa = f1.integrate(x)
bb = 1/a*log(a*x+b)
aa_cmp = bb-aa # Should be zero
sage_time_f1 = timeit.eval('f1.integrate(x)')
Hi
When I call,
world + sum([point3d(v, color='red') for v in city_coords]) + sum
([point3d(v, size=2, color='green') for v in mydots])
from within a file it does not work. I do not get an error message, it
is just that the Jmol 3D image viewer never appears.
That line of code call Jmol only
On Nov 24, 2008, at 11:54 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Tim Lahey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
If I have the following example Sage code,
var('x,a,b')
# Test 1
f1 = 1/(a*x+b)
aa = f1.integrate(x)
bb = 1/a*log(a*x+b)
aa_cmp = bb-aa # Should be zero
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:00 PM, acardh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
When I call,
world + sum([point3d(v, color='red') for v in city_coords]) + sum
([point3d(v, size=2, color='green') for v in mydots])
from within a file it does not work. I do not get an error message, it
is just that
No worries, I mainly wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something.
On Nov 24, 6:47 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I looked but couldn't find how to create a set of linked worksheets
like the tutorial. I.e. if you
On Nov 25, 2008, at 12:33 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
sage: import sympy
sage: var('x,a,b')
(x, a, b)
sage: f1=1/(a*x+b)
sage: sympy.integrate(sympy.sympify(f1),sympy.sympify(x))
1/a*log(b + a*x)
sage: sympy_integrate = lambda f,x: sympy.integrate(sympy.sympify(f),
sympy.sympify(x))
sage:
Tim Lahey wrote:
On Nov 25, 2008, at 12:33 AM, Jason Grout wrote:
sage: import sympy
sage: var('x,a,b')
(x, a, b)
sage: f1=1/(a*x+b)
sage: sympy.integrate(sympy.sympify(f1),sympy.sympify(x))
1/a*log(b + a*x)
sage: sympy_integrate = lambda f,x: sympy.integrate(sympy.sympify(f),
I see that the ticket
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4533
has been closed. Thank you for the effort, now divisors in SAGE is
much faster!! However, the one that packed in SAGE 3.2 is still about
3 times slower than that in PARI. I wonder if all the improvements
have been implemented
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:43 PM, pong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that the ticket
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4533
has been closed. Thank you for the effort, now divisors in SAGE is
much faster!! However, the one that packed in SAGE 3.2 is still about
3 times slower than
Oh really.
Now I realized why I had in my mind that SAGE was much slower---the
test what based on a more complicated function instead of just
divisors.
Looking forward to SAGE 3.2.1 then.
On Nov 24, 11:05 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:43 PM, pong [EMAIL
49 matches
Mail list logo
