On 2014-10-24, Mike wrote:
> This was a "demonstration problem" - my actual application will involve
> arbitrary-precision reals with lots of constraints.
>
> It appears that PPL not only supports rationals, but insists on them. It
> seems to set the base_ring to QQ, as the output from the foll
This was a "demonstration problem" - my actual application will involve
arbitrary-precision reals with lots of constraints.
It appears that PPL not only supports rationals, but insists on them. It
seems to set the base_ring to QQ, as the output from the following code is
"Rational Field", but
This was a "demonstration problem" - my actual application will involve
arbitrary-precision reals with lots of constraints.
It appears that PPL not only supports rationals, but insists on them. It
seems to set the base_ring to QQ, as the output from the following code is
"Rational Field", but
If your problem is over QQ then just use that (PPL supports exact
rationals).
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:38:39 AM UTC+1, Mike wrote:
>
> I'd like to be able to do linear programming to arbitrary precision. The
> documentation that I've found claims that both the glpk and PPL solvers
On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 21:38:39 UTC-6, Mike wrote:
>
> I'd like to be able to do linear programming to arbitrary precision. The
> documentation that I've found claims that both the glpk and PPL solvers
> should do this, but I haven't been able to get either to work.
>
> As an example, th
Mike wrote:
>
> I'd like to be able to do linear programming to arbitrary precision. The
> documentation that I've found claims that both the glpk and PPL solvers
> should do this, but I haven't been able to get either to work.
>
> As an example, the following code prints c to high precision,
