> I should point out that the strategy for multiplication in Tom and > Robert's paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1413 is likely to be better. > Judging from the timings in that paper we are about a factor of two > behind them. I plan to implement/port their very cool trick for finite > extension fields at some point in the future. The trick is limited to > multiplication as far as I understand it thus it might make still sense > to consider my representation for the elimination base case etc.
Our runtime is something like O(e^1.6 n^2.8) using Karatsuba on the matrix slices. Looks like you've implemented a lookup table for your finite field arithmetic? If that's only twice as slow as the bitslicing strategy, I'm very impressed -- especially since you have to use 16 bits to store a 9-bit field element due to alignment. I guess the real question is, how quickly can one transition between the two representations? > Anyway ... question: Do we want my new code in Sage? +1 -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
