On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:17:55 PM UTC+1, Fredrik Johansson wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:06:02 PM UTC+2, wstein wrote: >> >> Hi -- Another question. You just deleted this [1] below -- does flint >> really solidly beat it? >> > > FLINT uses the same formula for 4x4 determinants, so the difference should > be negligible (just the difference in overhead between the mpz and fmpz > types). > > I'm afraid that the overhead cannot be avoided in the current implementation, one would need repeated calls to fmpz_mat_entry() anyways. By the way, the new proposed implementation (purely FLINT) solidly beats Magma (I am trying random matrices with entries of having 10^6 decimal digits). And for those matrices it takes 0.8s to compute one such determinant in my laptop... It takes the same in the Sage current.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
