Hacker News Reader

Comment by angersock | Hacker News Reader

And because it's all closed-source, you'll never know how it was finding the wrong answers!

I think that the use of closed-source software in any public research or scientific undertaking should probably be verboten.

View on HN

That would be Sage, but (and I say this as somebody who uses Sage wherever possible) it's light years behind Mathematica and always will be. Do you want to be the guy in charge of implementing all of the incredibly complicated functionality in Mathematica? Or even better, writing quality documentation for all of it, which Mathematica has? There is a lot of software out there for which the intersection of the people who possess the technical knowledge to write it correctly, and the people who are willing to do so for free, is empty. (In the cases where it's not, we call those "graduate students" :)

Great, but if Mathematica has also not written it correctly, then what? The fact that Mathematica has it and Sage doesn't is irrelevant, if Mathematica has it wrong.

I just used Sage to find all sets of 1 quadrillion positive integers that have the same product and sum. Feel free to try that in Mathematica.

Is this a finite set? If so, what's the simplest way to show this?

I came up with my own algorithm and found several speedups, but I haven't written an expanded article yet. I've implemented it in Julia, but Julia's built-in factoring is (unfortunately) far slower than Sage's.

A short preliminary article:

http://angrystatistician.blogspot.com/2014/08/learn-this-one...

Here's the Sage code:

https://github.com/octonion/puzzles/tree/master/product-sum

I'd be curious to see the speed of the corresponding Mathematica or Maple code.

The Mathematica code below is roughly comparable to your vanilla version. Using a 2013 iMac (3.2 GHz Intel Core i5) I get the following timings for Sage/Mathematica (Mathematica gets more competitive for larger problems):

10^8 22s 65s

10^9 225s 635s

10^11 14h20 16h05

However, I found that Sage seems to calculate divisors faster than Mathematica for large numbers. The following are the times to sum the divisors of one million numbers starting at 10^8, 10^9, 10^10, 10^11:

Sage: 18s, 21s, 24s, 27s

Mathematica: 12s, 14s, 28s, 49s

Solutions[pSum_, pProd_] := With[{term = 1 + pSumpProd}, With[{div = Divisors[term]}, Map[Function[x, If[Mod[x + 1, pProd] == 0, (1 + {x, term/x})/pProd, ## &[]]], Take[div, Ceiling[Length[div]/2]]]]]

WithNonOneValues[n_, nval_] := Last[Reap[If[nval == 0, Sow /@ Solutions[n - 2, 1], Module[{val = Array[2 &, nval], idx = 1}, While[idx <= nval, With[{pSum = Plus @@ val + n - nval - 2, pProd = Times @@ val}, If[pSum + 2val[[1]] < pProd*val[[1]]^2, If[(++idx) <= nval, val[[Range[idx]]] = val[[idx]] + 1], Map[Function[x, If[Min[x] >= val[[1]], Sow[Flatten[{x, val}], ## &[]]]], Solutions[pSum, pProd]]; idx = 1; val[[1]] = val[[1]] + 1]]]]]]]

AllSolutions[n_] := Flatten[Map[Function[x, WithNonOneValues[n, x]], Range[0, Log2[n]]], 2]

At least for this research, Sage may have been better. This code follows the random matrix example to show that Sage gives at least consistent results in one of the cases they pointed out.

Here's the public SageMathCloud worksheet: https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/49a2531d-9d02-42c9-9db6-...

I wish they would have supplied those matrices they printed out in machine-readable format so we could easily put those in Sage too.

Here's another worksheet with some symbolic integrals from the article: https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/4a5f0542-5873-4eed-a85c-...

I wrote the det code in Sage that you're calling there (though in Sage-6.4 it'll likely be replaced by a call to FLINT). It computes det(A) in a very interesting way, which is asymptotically massively faster than Mathematica. To compute det(A), choose a random vector v and solve Ax = v using a p-adic lifting algorithm (the one in https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~astorjoh/iml.html). One can prove --using Cramer's rule--that the lcm of the denominators of the entries of x will then be a divisor d of det(A), and with high probability one expects that det(A)/d is a tiny integer. One can then provably (using the Hadamard bound) find det(A) by working modulo a few additional primes and using the Chinese Remainder theorem.

Magma gets massive funding from Simons Foundation. It is a shame to have all that money donated to nonfree software program, really.

I couldn't agree more. A terribly wasted opportunity.

It doesn't have to be free (as in beer) to have source code available. But it does require some out of the box thinking from the vendor - I deal with one licensed product, and they won't give us source code for the JDBC drivers. It's a JDBC driver! It's not doing anything revolutionary, it has nothing to do with the core competitive advantage of your product, ffs.

I suppose that you'll also need to use only open-source operating systems. And motherboards, memory, storage, CPUs, and GPUs. And even then you'll want to audit the supply chain for the computer manufacturer, to make sure that there are no counterfeit open source components being used. Of course that doesn't guarantee that there are no bugs in the implementation of any of the above. Or that you don't have a faulty component. So to develop confidence, you'll have to test against multiple independent implementations. Which you need to do anyway, even in the case that one link in the chain is closed.

If the software is open source, and you test both on ARM, Intel and... Sparc? You should at least be able to get a "majority vote", and be able to narrow down errors in hardware, by running some software tests. Yes, if you're doing work that it would be very high-value to break (say you're the NSA, and China might have an interest in undermining your crypto work) -- that might not be enough.

But we know from experience that one can often work around bugs in hardware in software (and/or microcode). So I wouldn't say "just" using open source software on top of proprietary/opaque harware gains you nothing.

Also, it's been a long while since using an open source operating system was a controversial choice -- in fact, I think it'd be hard to find a proprietary operating system that both supports good CAS, and runs on at least three different architectures...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com