#16374: better two_squares, three_squares, four_squares for small input
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
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 | 17883e34f96f7f78f35f56bad527dcbaa728169d
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Replying to [comment:20 leif]:
> I wouldn't call 2^51^+21 "very large", at least not if the functions now
take `unsigned long` s. (Ok, on most of current machines that exceeds an
`unsigned int`.)
Very large meant "the function is no more efficient with such input".
> While we're at it, if `n` is `unsigned long`, you should take `(unsigned
long)sqrtl((long double)n)`, otherwise you'd probably have to add 1 to the
result in case `n` is a perfect square or slightly above. (On 32-bit
machines, where `unsigned long`s are only 32-bit as well, that doesn't
matter.)
Done.
Vincent
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16374#comment:22>
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.
