> Maybe I am just stupid, but I think that it would be good for this
> behaviour to be documented more clearly! After all, if I define
> R=RealField(200) and mutiply elements of R together the results will
> still only have 200 bits of precision. (And yes, I do know the
> difference between archi
Thanks, and yes I will try that. It still takes a few minutes (even
with the +O(q^200) in place) to do what takes Magma a few seconds.
John
On 26 March 2013 16:38, luisfe wrote:
> John,
>
> I think you are also hitting #10255, current polynomial multiplication code
> in Sage is worse than the c
John,
I think you are also hitting #10255, current polynomial multiplication code
in Sage is worse than the classic school multiplication method in many
instances. Do you mind trying the code after applying #10255? And (maybe)
also #10480. The data would be very valuable to me.
Thanks,
Luis
Answering my own question -- but as a cautionary tale for others. I
mistakenly thought that if I define a power series ring with some
default precision, say 200, and create an object in it out of a vector
of 200 coefficients, then it would automatically have +O(q^200) added,
but that is not the ca
