>
> Currently working on that (see http://fredrikj.net/calcium/ and
> http://fredrikj.net/blog/2020/09/benchmarking-exact-dft-computation/).
>
Looks great! The standard question is then: do you think your library fits
for the throne of RealField and could rule peacefully other "real fields"
of
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:09:05 AM UTC+2 emanuel.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>> To the backward compatibility
>> reasons others have mentioned, I would add that for many people, "real
>> numbers" in a "computational" context *does* mean floating-point
>> numbers!
>>
>
> That's a bad (f
>
> [ Snip... ]
> To the backward compatibility
> reasons others have mentioned, I would add that for many people, "real
> numbers" in a "computational" context *does* mean floating-point
> numbers!
>
That's a bad (filthy ?) habit 60+ years of "scientific computing"
indoctrinated us int
On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
> I gather that (ignoring NaNs and +/-infinities)
> the addition and multiplication are commutative here
Actually not even x+y == x+y is guaranteed and may fail once you let the
optimizer loose ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/
