Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °
You are not logged in.
#326 2012-07-15 12:33:10
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Okay, I do not remember what the result was about the Lattice Reduce.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#327 2012-07-15 13:00:15
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
What do you mean?
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#328 2012-07-15 14:33:04
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Whether we found one or not.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#329 2012-07-15 21:41:13
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
We didn't. Do you think we could construct one?
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#330 2012-07-15 21:46:10
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
I tend to doubt it.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#331 2012-07-18 23:14:41
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Thought so.
I looked at the Wiki PSLQ and Lattice reduce articlea and there was a list of packages that have a built-in Lattice Reduce function, but there was no Maxima there. Luckily enough, I will soon be in possession of Maple, so there is still chance for a working PSLQ on my side.
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#332 2012-07-19 02:20:14
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Maple? When will you have it and why not Mathematica instead? They are about equally good but you will get more help with Mathematica.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#333 2013-03-31 02:36:53
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Hi bobbym
I have gotten PSLQ to work in M! 
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#334 2013-03-31 03:40:07
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
How did you get it working? You know what the ole emmer says...
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#335 2013-03-31 09:30:53
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Well, I just copied your code into it.
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#336 2013-03-31 10:13:35
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Did you try it out to see if it works?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#337 2013-03-31 10:27:50
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
I have.
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#338 2013-03-31 10:28:23
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Hahahhahahahah oh that is a good one!
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#339 2013-03-31 10:30:20
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Why?
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#340 2013-03-31 10:32:42
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Because you answer with short replies. Now what the heck does, "I have" tell me. Post the "I have."
Where did he go?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#341 2013-03-31 10:41:46
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
I'm sorry. I am on a phone.
Anyway, yes, I have tried it, and it is working.
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#342 2013-03-31 10:43:45
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
I know what I would have tried it on...
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#343 2013-03-31 10:45:05
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
A Diophantine?
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#344 2013-03-31 10:49:19
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Nope, that integral that we used contour integration on.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#345 2013-03-31 10:58:52
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Don't we have an exact answer for that?
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#346 2013-03-31 11:04:58
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
Yes we do but do we have that answer from another completely different method?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#347 2013-03-31 11:11:06
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
I don't think we do. Maybe we could get an answer from another method.
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#348 2013-03-31 11:15:39
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
That is what the PSLQ can do!
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#349 2013-03-31 11:17:16
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
But we have only one answer and it is an exact one. What do you plan on doing?
The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#350 2013-03-31 11:19:07
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: PSLQ and LLL?
The PSLQ can also get that answer.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.