On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:52 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> There is without a doubt something fishy going on with coercion. See
> also malb's report with polynomial rings at
>
> http://www.sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/1046
Just to confirm, this is only the first time, right?
I am pretty sure this is becaus
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:07:03 -, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, somehow I knew this was going to become a trac ticket. It is
> also my suspicion that it is an optimization issue with number
> fields. It seems really bizarre that it should be calling a
> polynomial ring const
Thanks, somehow I knew this was going to become a trac ticket. It is
also my suspicion that it is an optimization issue with number
fields. It seems really bizarre that it should be calling a
polynomial ring constructor!
(The cost right now is absolutely killing me right now. I've started
enum
On Nov 8, 2007 9:52 PM, mabshoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > Woah! Can someone explain to me the various calls above? I'd think
> > this should take epsilon time to coerce the elements of the sequence.
> > Or perhaps is there another better way to coerce into Z_F (or,
> > equivalently f
On Nov 8, 10:46 pm, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
Hi John,
>
> Check this out:
>
> sage: def stupid_function(n):
> : Z_F = NumberField(x^2-x-1, 't').maximal_order()
> : for i in range(n):
> : Z_F([5,1])
> :
> sage: prun stupid_function(10^4
