On Wednesday 23 April 2008, John Cremona wrote: > Thanks, Martin. I agree with your comments. All I am really talking > about here is the time taken to construct the field -- I know that a > lot more work will be needed to get a really good finite field setup > in Sage (including arbitrary coercions into extension fields, as > previously discussed). > > I did already implement my (1)+(2) but it doesn't work, probably > because I don't know cython. It's also a bit ugly since the .pyx file > now has a 340-line assignment which starts > GF2X_irred_tab = ((0), (0), > (1), (1), (1), (2), (1), (1), > (4,3,1), (1), (3), (2), (3), (4,3,1), > (5), (1), (5,3,1), (3), (3), (5,2,1),
Try (0,) instead of (0) to create a tuple with only the zero in it. So to summarise the strategy is: 1) If a Conway polynomial exists use that (for now) 2) If an element int he GF2X_irred_tab (which should probably be in another file) exists, use that 3) search for a tri- or pentanomial with some code similar to the one in blog post Thoughts? Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 _www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb _jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
