Hi, I've attached a patch that implements next_prime in both cases uniformly, and adds a next_probable_prime function. This should help clarify what I meant in my previous post.
David Harvey said:
> Perhaps when Proof = False, there might be some mechanism for
> specifying a probability bound, at least approximately, for use in
> those algorithms for which it makes sense.
That's a great idea. The function could be
def proof(default=True, params=...):
...
Here params would be a class or dictionary or something with various
fields that make sense from a proof=... point of view. That would have
to be thought out and designed based on actual examples.
William
William
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
4880.patch
Description: Binary data
