#17886: Faster qqbar operations using resultants
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  gagern             |        Owner:
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  new
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-6.6
      Component:  number fields      |   Resolution:
       Keywords:  qqbar resultant    |    Merged in:
  exactify minpoly                   |    Reviewers:
        Authors:  Martin von Gagern  |  Work issues:
Report Upstream:  N/A                |       Commit:
         Branch:                     |  234b2c4f3435531007c095d278a4c02da8ee2365
  u/gagern/ticket/17886              |     Stopgaps:
   Dependencies:                     |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by gagern):

 OK, the doctests look a lot better now. Mostly arbitrary choices made
 differently, like sign changes or using a different root as the reference
 generator, stuff like that. In several cases I obtain simpler results,
 i.e. polynomials of lower degree and the likes.

 One thing that has me worried are cyclotomics. If both arguments are from
 cyclotomic fields, then we should do the union (which is fast in that
 case) instead of the minpoly and resultant. I haven't figured out how best
 to check for that case, though.

 Another thing I fail is that test taken from that ARPREC paper. That
 example is really fast in current implementation, precisely because it's
 only operating in a single number field, so it doesn't really require any
 unions at all. Should we try to detect this fact, i.e. see if both
 arguments are either rational or elements of the same number field? My
 failure is only later on, where the original code somehow magically knows
 that the difference of two equal numbers is zero. I guess that if we did
 introduce a special case for equal number field, we might get that for
 free even though I don't know exactly how it works.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17886#comment:4>
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.

Reply via email to