#16374: better two_squares, three_squares, four_squares for small input
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: number theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Vincent Delecroix | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/vdelecroix/16374 | a2b31ca5ec86eaed275a854e41cb5fd7a3ce5c95
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Replying to [comment:11 jdemeyer]:
> I would recommend to use `unsigned long` instead of `instead int`. If
could imagine that the sum of 4 squares function is useful for numbers
larger than `2^32`.
Of course. But for large entries, we would better use the `*_squares` from
#16308. I will do some timings, but if we loose something on small
integers I will not change it.
> Also a typo: `plateform` -> `platform`
Thank you. I will modify it.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16374#comment:12>
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
