On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 1:37:36 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote: > > First of all, UCF is *not* a tower of relative fields. So the first > remark does not apply. > > Secondly, the slowness of UCF compared to the slowness of symbolic (i.e. > SR) is more than acceptable. The slowness refered in the second comment > is when you compare with a fixed (absolute) number field. >
UCF won't do for arbitrary NF, as not all the algebraic numbers are cyclotomic. Although in your setting indeed they might be... > > On 01/08/16 23:47, saad khalid wrote: > > Very cool, thank you! I looked into UCF a bit and on this page: > > > http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/number_fields/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.html > > > > > It says "Doing arithmetic in towers of relative fields that depends on > > canonical coercions is currently VERY SLOW. It is much better to > explicitly > > coerce all elements into a common field, then do arithmetic with them > there > > (which is quite fast).", and on another page, it says "arithmetical > > operations are quite expensive, so the use of internally represented > > cyclotomics is not recommended for doing arithmetic over number fields, > > such as calculations with matrices of cyclotomics." > > > > What exactly does that mean? To me, it reads like it's saying that I > > shouldn't be using UCF with algebraic operations, because that is slow > > somehow. So, would it be better to use something else? Or am I reading > that > > incorrectly? Sorry for the confusion > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
