#17695: Slightly fasten is_cyclotomic()
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: bruno | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-6.5
Component: number theory | Resolution:
Keywords: cyclotomic | Merged in:
polynomials | Reviewers:
Authors: Bruno Grenet | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | f79eeaaa630b1bd966a25a2f7b0f7a5f1dda3378
u/bruno/slightly_fasten_is_cyclotomic__| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by bruno):
Replying to [comment:3 vdelecroix]:
> Hello Bruno,
>
> Actually, I discussed this with Karim Belabas in Bordeaux few weeks ago.
We should either call Pari or stick to their implementation. It is much
faster:
> {{{
> sage: p = cyclotomic_polynomial(150)
> sage: pp = p._gp_()
> sage: timeit("pp.poliscyclo()")
> 625 loops, best of 3: 697 µs per loop
> sage: timeit("p.is_cyclotomic()")
> 125 loops, best of 3: 2.78 ms per loop
> }}}
> Moreover they do have the function `poliscycloprod` that checks if all
roots are roots of unity (which is even faster).
>
> Vincent
It is not surprising indeed that Pari is faster for this. I don't
understand what you mean by
> either call Pari or stick to their implementation.
Do you mean there are two ways to use Pari's implementation?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17695#comment:5>
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.
