#17852: Small cleanup in rings.arith and rings.integer
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: basic arithmetic | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Vincent Delecroix | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/vdelecroix/17852 | cbbb06fa27b0b9178ad3f9d0de3dc3235c5ec1c3
Dependencies: #16878 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Replying to [comment:53 jdemeyer]:
> {{{
> sage: hash(-920390823904823094890238490238484)
> -873977844 # 32-bit
> 6874330978542788722 # 64-bit
> }}}
Thanks!
I also noticed that on large input `pari` is faster than `mpir`:
{{{
sage: %timeit a = (2**50).binomial(2**10, algorithm='mpir')
1000 loops, best of 3: 462 µs per loop
sage: %timeit a = (2**50).binomial(2**10, algorithm='pari')
1000 loops, best of 3: 221 µs per loop
}}}
and the difference is even more significant with larger numbers... I will
had a note related to that.
Finally, I have troubles with the modification of the output type in
`arith.binomial` ([comment:48 comment:48], [comment:51 comment:51] and
[comment:52 comment:52]). It is responsible for some doctest failure in
`rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py` (the random generation
stuff). I was not able to track down the issue.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17852#comment:54>
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.
