2019-04-17 11:34:44 -0600 | received badge | ● Popular Question (source) |

2018-06-21 12:47:13 -0600 | commented answer | HUGE delay in sage.crypto.sbox.SBox method nonlinearity() introduced in v.8.2 @sageuser1 I finally had some spare time and checked the timings of a simple c implementation to compute the LAT (which is the main time consuming part for computing the nonlinearity). I guess the Sage implementation can definitely be improved. I opened a ticket for it, https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25633 and will work on it at the upcoming SageDays. |

2018-06-08 13:07:17 -0600 | commented answer | HUGE delay in sage.crypto.sbox.SBox method nonlinearity() introduced in v.8.2 @sageuser1 yes that may well be the case. If I find some spare time, I'll try to investigate if this could be improved. |

2018-06-08 04:08:22 -0600 | received badge | ● Good Answer (source) |

2018-06-07 15:00:24 -0600 | received badge | ● Nice Answer (source) |

2018-06-07 10:42:11 -0600 | answered a question | HUGE delay in sage.crypto.sbox.SBox method nonlinearity() introduced in v.8.2 I've opened the following ticket: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25516 The regression was indeed introduced by recent changes to the SBox module and should be fixed with the above patch. Thanks for reporting this! |

2018-06-06 02:53:27 -0600 | commented answer | HUGE delay in sage.crypto.sbox.SBox method nonlinearity() introduced in v.8.2 Samuel informed me, I'll take a look into this. |

2017-01-18 11:49:45 -0600 | received badge | ● Teacher (source) |

2017-01-17 03:02:31 -0600 | received badge | ● Supporter (source) |

2017-01-17 03:02:31 -0600 | received badge | ● Scholar (source) |

2017-01-17 03:02:26 -0600 | commented answer | How to dynamically add boolean variables? :) +1 for your update, this nicely comprehends your first part. |

2017-01-16 08:26:20 -0600 | commented question | How can I exit help? ctrl+tab changes the tab in chromium - does this help you? |

2017-01-16 08:22:27 -0600 | commented answer | How to dynamically add boolean variables? Oh, that's actually a good idea, I hadn't thought of this :D But I still have another concern: I might want to actually add the variable y to the system of equations, so that the Groebner basis algorithms work with y - maybe this has some advantages for Groebner bases? Using an ordinary python variable does not help in this way, right? |

2017-01-16 08:20:05 -0600 | commented answer | How to dynamically add boolean variables? Yes, that's what I initially thought of - but my hope was, that there is something more "clever". |

2017-01-13 05:00:08 -0600 | received badge | ● Student (source) |

2017-01-13 04:58:24 -0600 | commented question | Grobner basis What do you mean with |

2017-01-13 04:58:06 -0600 | answered a question | Grobner bases of ideals When you have unknowns in GF(2), you might want to use BooleanPolynomialRing, instead of the more general PolynomialRing. The BooleanPolynomialRing takes care of that for all unknowns in GF(2) it holds: x^2 = x. With this you code looks like this: My laptop computes this Groebner basis within seconds. |

2017-01-13 04:58:06 -0600 | asked a question | How to dynamically add boolean variables? I want to experiment with Groebner bases for a system of equations in boolean unknowns. In order to simplify equations I would like to dynamically insert new variables for some terms. Is this possible somehow? An example could be: |

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.