On Tuesday 13 January 2009 19:26:07 Carl Witty wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2:38 am, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
> > > > The other issue here is that there are multiple algorithms here and
> > > > it is quite likely that very small examples will use the basic xgcd
> > > > which may well guarantee mini
On Jan 13, 2:38 am, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
> > > The other issue here is that there are multiple algorithms here and it
> > > is quite likely that very small examples will use the basic xgcd which
> > > may well guarantee minimality. Only if you have say hundreds of
> > > thousands of bi
Hi Case,
Thanks very much for looking into this for us!! I'll do my best to get
something committed to trunk by way of a fix in the next couple of
days.
Will look into documenting the issue you mention.
Bill.
2009/1/13 Case Vanhorsen :
>
> I found the underlying cause of the problems with --en
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 02:23:44 mabshoff wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2:36 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > What Jason is saying (I think) is that currently xgcd (not gcd)
> > doesn't use Moller's patches as such. It will in future, but not at
> > the moment. So whatever guarantees you had before, y
