I wrote up some quick code to use GSL's polynomial solver--see below.
It looks like GSL is about 4 times as fast as numpy, but seem to give
about the same precision (on my test polynomial).
One may want to use newton-raphson to refine these roots, but I'm
pretty sure one would have to work
> > The root finding is much much more accurate, and no doubt faster too.
>
> I really hope this is true. Have you tested it?
I haven't. However, I remember testing the same example that was in
GSL's documentation. It was something like x^3-1, something that had 1
as a root. The GSL root ~ 1 was
On Sep 4, 12:31 pm, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using numpy, reasonably accurate means up to only a few places, not
> the full double precision. This leads to badness when you try to
> factor anything. If it finds that 1.112451357 is a root of
> (x-1)^3, you will likely get a qu
On 9/4/07, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thanks, that was fast! If I may ask, what was the problem? Must've
> > > been something not particularly exciting...
> >
> > Robert Miller implemented root finding for RDF polynomials right
> > before SAGE-2.8.3, and he messed up. Basica
> > Thanks, that was fast! If I may ask, what was the problem? Must've
> > been something not particularly exciting...
>
> Robert Miller implemented root finding for RDF polynomials right
> before SAGE-2.8.3, and he messed up. Basically SAGE represents
> polynomials as list with one "endian-nes
On 9/4/07, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For some reason, only "prun" and not "%prun" worked for me. Aside
> from some obvious things, the lionshare of the time is spent on root
> finding. I'll have a look at GSL, which looks very promising, and get
> back to you.
>
> (My polynomials
On 9/3/07, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> Thanks, that was fast! If I may ask, what was the problem? Must've
> been something not particularly exciting...
Robert Miller implemented root finding for RDF polynomials right
before SAGE-2.8.3, and he messed up. Basically SAGE
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, John Voight wrote:
> Unfortunately, even after the week's optimizations, my number field
> enumeration algorithm runs (on meccah) almost 20 times slower on SAGE
> than on Magma (181s vs. 9s)--and with identical verbose output. I
> just don't see how there can be that much of
On Sep 4, 4:31 am, "John Voight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> Thanks, that was fast! If I may ask, what was the problem? Must've
> been something not particularly exciting...
>
> Double precision is more than sufficient for my purposes--even floats
> (!) are fine, I just need fast
Hi Will,
Thanks, that was fast! If I may ask, what was the problem? Must've
been something not particularly exciting...
Double precision is more than sufficient for my purposes--even floats
(!) are fine, I just need fast and reasonably accurate.
Craig also whipped up a patch to include those
10 matches
Mail list logo
