Bill Hart's blog is, as I expected, thorough and informative. It does not make for an entirely fair comparison to show timings for systems that restrict the exponents of polynomials to different lengths. That is, there are problems that can be done very simply in a system with 64 bit exponents but not with 16 bit exponents. Maxima's polynomial "rat" subsystem has exponents which are arbitrary precision, and are available in Sage. Since it is possible to encode multiple variables into a single variable by encoding in exponents, this can matter.
I have pointed out numerous times that relatively high speed on polynomial problems of astronomical size may not be the criterion for choosing a method and representation for most users. But this is a fun target for making improvements. RJF On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 10:13:59 PM UTC-7, parisse wrote: > > > > Le dimanche 3 septembre 2017 16:06:46 UTC+2, rjf a écrit : >> >> I was doing timing on the same task and found that one system >> (used for celestial mechanics) was spectacularly fast on a test just like >> this one. >> One reason was that it first changed f*(f+1) to >> >> f^2 +f >> and was clever in computing f^2. You should be clever >> at this too. >> >> Anyway, be careful when you are testing. >> >> > giac does not cheat, it does the product f*(f+1) not f^2+f. For more > details, you can have a look at Bill Hart blog: > > http://wbhart.blogspot.fr/2017/07/update-on-fast-multivariate-polynomial.html > -- 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.
