Note that Hans has fixed the fact that Singular wasn't reporting this as an overflow.
On Sunday, 9 October 2016 17:35:57 UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote: > > By default, Singular uses 16 bit exponents. But it is perfectly capable of > working with exponents up to 64 bits. That will be slower of course. > > I guess it isn't easy for Sage to change the relevant ring upon overflow > to one using 64 bit exponents. > > I can't say whether it would be easy or hard for Singular to automatically > change the exponent size for you. For basic arithmetic, I have implemented > precisely this in the code I've been writing. But Singular is almost > infinitely more complex than the very simple cases I've been dealing with > in my own code. At this stage I couldn't even hazard a guess. > > I'll ask Hans if I remember. But either way, I believe this would be an > *extremely* time consuming thing to fix. How important is it? > > Bill. > > On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 01:10:31 UTC+2, Jakob Kroeker wrote: >> >> >> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6472 >> >> even for recent singular upgrade >> >> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17254 >> >> and it was not(?) reported to upstream... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
