|Bill Allombert on Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:43:51 +0200|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 06:20:19PM +0200, Karim BELABAS wrote: > On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 04:39:07PM +0200, Karim BELABAS wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > It seems that PARI * and ^ operators allow operation on quadratic > > > > forms but reduce them. I would personnaly prefer it does not reduce > > > > them. > > > > > > Coefficient explosion would occur for ^. > > > > ...only if you plan to reduce the result. > > I don't understand this. I was trying to say that if you want the powraw result the coefficient explosion is unavoidable, so cannot be accounted as a limitation. > Currently, if you want no reduction, you use xxxraw routines, whereas the > natural operators (*, ^) do reduce. ... do reduce sometimes, yes. > With your proposed change (which I don't like), the natural operators would > not reduce and you would need to apply reduction yourself if you want it. > Except that for ^ it's not possible to do this at the proper place [ you can > only reduce at the end, not after each composition ]. > > > Please note that the == operator is not consistent with this > > policy, nor is ^1. > > It is, assuming all inputs are reduced [ at least for t_QFI ] Which is not exactly the same as ``do reduce'' Anyway, we must make results more consistent toward reduction one way or another. Cheers, Bill.