Comment #60 on issue 1598 by mattpap: New polynomials manipulation module http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
> Then perhaps this should be done only to separatevars. It depends on how useful this can be. Possibly we should finally derive some scheme for implementing simplification/rewriting routines. > Also, I wonder if you might call terms_gcd() -- the function -- simply > gcdfactor. > gcd() is already taken, as I recall, in polys and terms_gcd() doesn't do > the same > thing as the method by the same name. In perfect world this would be factor_out_terms_gcd(), a bit long, but gcdfactor() means nothing to me, however is shorter. Anyway, terms_gcd() is a wrong name at all, because it doesn't return the GCD itself, but Poly.terms_gcd() is OK because it actually returns the GCD (well, in a terms of generators' exponents and without ground domain analysis, which is done in terms_gcd() version). > since Mathematica can do this instantly (...) so, the journey will be > long. No one ever said it will be short, but we already went quite far and paying a little more attention to what we do and how we do it, we can go even further. For example a trivial analysis of the example in c#10 shows that by being a bit more careful we easily can improve factor() performance 2x..4x (for that special case). We could do even better if we could implement a better multivariate GCD algorithm, like EEZ or SPMOD, but this is non-trivial and requires a lot of work. -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue. You may adjust your issue notification preferences at: http://code.google.com/hosting/settings -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-issues" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy-iss...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-issues?hl=en.