2017-07-19 21:34:08 -0600 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |

2014-06-29 11:53:39 -0600 | received badge | ● Famous Question (source) |

2014-06-29 11:53:39 -0600 | received badge | ● Notable Question (source) |

2014-06-13 07:07:45 -0600 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |

2014-04-11 01:19:54 -0600 | received badge | ● Student (source) |

2013-10-01 18:50:58 -0600 | commented answer | Using `SimplicalComplex` on a set of sets Interesting. I am using the online sage notebook at http://www.sagenb.org/ and sets of sets do not work for me. I get the error `TypeError: unhashable type: 'set'` when I try the second option you describe above. And for the other two the simplical complexes I get are incorrect. |

2013-09-29 15:12:02 -0600 | asked a question | Using `SimplicalComplex` on a set of sets Say I have something like this: So I have a list of sets consisting of subsets of $1,2,...,n\space$ (in general the lists I am interested in are longer). I get these by using Now the See here for more info on finite simplical complexes in sage. My question is: what is the best way to go from my set of sets to a list of lists? More generally what is the best way to deal the fact that most enumerative combinatorics I can do in sage gives me sets but for |

2013-09-19 08:39:12 -0600 | marked best answer | Out of memory while enumerating vectors In your code, by just replacing By the way, if all prescribed values are the same, you can also do: |

2013-09-11 07:24:35 -0600 | received badge | ● Scholar (source) |

2013-09-11 07:24:35 -0600 | marked best answer | Fastest way of running sage? Hi, (This was just going to be a comment but it got too long) Maybe 1 is faster than 2 since that is running natively on the server, the VirtualBox overhead might slow things down. You can create a worksheet and run the command `%time a=factorial(1000000)` Here is what I got. On profiling programs: `sage: %prun a=factorial(1000000) 2 function calls in 0.286 seconds Ordered by: internal time ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function) 1 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 <string>:1(<module>) 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 {method 'disable' of _lsprof.Profiler' objects}` More details here. Perhaps the naive answer is that running it on a "faster" computer would do the job. ;-) My experience back around sage-4.x was that compiling it resulted in faster runs, so my recommendation would be to compile sage on a linux machine. Just ran the factorial command and got `sage: %time a=factorial(1000000) CPU times: user 0.27 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.28 s Wall time: 0.28 s` I'm running a compiled sage 5.10 on arch linux.
Hope it helps! Updated to include running time at cloud.sagemath.org |

2013-09-09 11:42:56 -0600 | asked a question | Out of memory while enumerating vectors I am trying to enumerate all vectors of a certain dimension with entries less then some prescribed values and then check some conditions on each of them. This is the code I was thinking about:
The problem is that when the product of my ranges is larger than $10^7$ or so I get a Is there a more efficient way of enumerating vectors or avoiding the Thank you. |

2013-09-09 11:28:44 -0600 | commented answer | Fastest way of running sage? Thanks you, this is really helpful! |

2013-09-09 11:28:08 -0600 | received badge | ● Supporter (source) |

2013-09-08 11:28:34 -0600 | asked a question | Fastest way of running sage? Hi, So far I have used 3 different "versions" of sage: the online sage notebook: http://www.sagenb.org/ the sage notebook that I downloaded and run on Windows 7 thru VirtualBox on an intel core 2duo the sage in the cloud found here: https://cloud.sagemath.com/
Using "time a = factorial(1000000)" I get cpu and wall times of(.41s, .41s) for 1 and 2,13s; 9.53s) for 2. For 3 "time" apparently does not work but it seems slower than 1. Questions: Why is 1 significantly faster than 2? How can I test 3? Is there a way to test entire programs that gives the time for every step. What is the fastest way to run sage? Thanks! |

Copyright Sage, 2010. Some rights reserved under creative commons license. Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.