7:55 UTC+2, John Cremona a écrit :
>
> On 29 April 2014 19:23, Martin Albrecht
> >
> wrote:
> > On Monday 28 Apr 2014 14:57:59 François Colas wrote:
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> Here is two examples using multivariate quotients and extension fields
&g
ense._solve_right_nonsingular_square
>
>
>
> as the most expensive function call, which would imply John's assumption
> is
> right.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On Tuesday 15 Apr 2014 13:04:27 François Colas wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> &g
),cyclotomic_polynomial (5)])
> sage: K.base_field()
> Number Field in k1 with defining polynomial x^4 + x^3 + x^2 + x + 1
>
> Best
> Vincent
>
> 2014-04-22 10:55 UTC+02:00, François Colas >:
>
> > Hello group,
> >
> > I wonder why
> >
>
Hello group,
I wonder why
sage: K. = NumberField([cyclotomic_polynomial(3),cyclotomic_polynomial
(5)]); K
Number Field in k0 with defining polynomial x^2 + x + 1 over its base field
sage: K.gens()
(k0, k1)
should not rather print
Number Field in k0, k1 with defining polynomials x^2 + x + 1, x
to the ticket #16116 on trac
> (http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16116). Note that for performance, it
> is possible to use multivariate polynomials as described in the
> ticket.
>
> Best
> Vincent
>
> 2014-04-15 18:30 UTC+02:00, François Colas >:
>
> > He
Hello group,
I am playing with quotient ring of Z over cyclotomic polynomial but it is
strangely slow:
sage: m = random_prime(10^4); m
2437
sage: %time R. = ZZ['z'].quotient(cyclotomic_polynomial(m))
CPU times: user 2.50 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 2.50 s
Wall time: 2.50 s
cyclotomic_polynomial(m) i
I have created a new ticket:
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16161
Le lundi 14 avril 2014 15:58:59 UTC+2, François Colas a écrit :
>
> Here is what I did using LLL:
>
> """
> INPUT: a list of integers
> OUTPUT: (g, u) such that g = u1*a1 + u2*a2 + ... + un*an
&g
14 at 11:03 PM, David Roe
> >>> >
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sounds like a good suggestion. Do you want to create a trac account
> so
> >>>> that you can create the ticket?
> >>>> David
> >>>
> >>&
Hello group,
I realised that extended GCD for several integers is not implemented in
Sage (i.e. xgcd2([a1, ..., an]))
Actually this feature already exists in Magma :
> ExtendedGreatestCommonDivisor([385, 231, 165, 105]);
1 [ -2, 1, 2, 2 ]
It could be interesting to have something like :
g, u
