#14496: unify the three implementations of gaussian q-binomial coefficients
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Reporter: chapoton | Owner: tbd
Type: task | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.10
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: gaussian binomial | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers:
Authors: Frédéric Chapoton | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
I'll take a look at why the weight function in SF fails; but the best way
to fix it is in the weight, have a check for negative `n` or `k` and just
circumvent the call to `q_binomial()` and return 1.
As for the speed of the naive vs. cyclotomic polys, I would pick a cutoff
value which you think is about the breakeven point(s) for the two, and
call which ever function is faster based on that.
Also, have you tried implementing it by computing the q-binomial, then
substituting in a user defined `q` value to the result (in particular,
have you compared the speed)? I'm thinking this might be slower than just
computing it outright if `q` is in `GF(3)` for example... If you haven't,
I can write it up and run the tests.
Thanks for noticing this and working on it,[[BR]]
Travis
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14496#comment:8>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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 http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
