Thanks, i have done some examples of what i need for my goal (to
compute puiseux expansions of polynomials whose coefficients may be
algebraic numbers) and magma is still too slow. The problem is finding
the roots of a polynomial with algebraic coefficients... and i need
that a lot.
So i guess it
On Oct 24, 8:58 am, mmarco wrote:
> How fast is Magma for this?
Pretty snappy on small examples. Of course it'll get slow on bigger
ones. You can try yourself using their online version (at least as
long as you try examples that take less than 2 seconds total).
Example script:
Qbar:=AlgebraicClo
How fast is Magma for this?
On 22 oct, 17:51, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Oct 22, 8:06 am, William Stein wrote:
>
> > Is there a research paper explaining the finite field approach to
> > QQbar? It would be good to mention it here, since implementing
> > similar functionality Sage for computing with
On Oct 22, 8:06 am, William Stein wrote:
> Is there a research paper explaining the finite field approach to
> QQbar? It would be good to mention it here, since implementing
> similar functionality Sage for computing with QQbar would be a good
> project for somebody.
MR2578343 (2011d:13043) Ste
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Oct 21, 4:03 am, mmarco wrote:
>> That was my first idea when i encountered these problems. But then,
>> things like primary decomposition rely on factorization of
>> polynomials... which will differ a lot from QQbar to an algebraic
>> exten
On Oct 21, 4:03 am, mmarco wrote:
> That was my first idea when i encountered these problems. But then,
> things like primary decomposition rely on factorization of
> polynomials... which will differ a lot from QQbar to an algebraic
> extension of Q.
Indeed. Data point: Magma does allow QQbar as
That was my first idea when i encountered these problems. But then,
things like primary decomposition rely on factorization of
polynomials... which will differ a lot from QQbar to an algebraic
extension of Q.
I also thought of the aproach of translating my polynomials to a
common extension and the
On Oct 19, 4:45 am, mmarco wrote:
> Do you think it would be worth implementing all these features
> ourselves? Is there some movement in the Singular community to
> implement these rings?
My first reaction is "no". For any non-trivial linear algebra or
polynomial computations, you'll be testing
