Bill Allombert on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:02:45 +0100 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: Complex AGM |
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 05:41:24PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:20:45PM +0000, John Cremona wrote: > > Yes, that is essentially Cox's definition. But this ambiguous case > > only happens at the first step of the algorithm anyway, and when it > > does happen the two limits you get by making both choices have exactly > > the same absolute value. > > And they are mirror images with respect to the axis given by the two input > values. > > After discussion with Bill, we have a better suggestion. If in the first step > the choice is ambiguous, choose the one that yields an angle of pi/2 between > the arithmetic and the geometric mean, and not of 3pi/2. If I am not mistaken, > this definition makes the AGM completely homogeneous: > AGM (omega*a, omega*b) = omega * AGM (a, b), even if a/b is a negative real > number. > > This gives a nice intrinsic definition (actually, two equally valid ones, > since one could have chosen 3pi/2 over pi/2; so maybe one should say a > coherent definition). In particular, we can still use the current implemen- > tation that normalises one entry to 1. Or more precisely, there is a choice > to make in the first step of normalising towards 1 or -1 so that afterwards, > the canonical choice of square root with positive imaginary part corresponds > to the AGM defined as above. I have commited that change to agm. Thanks for all the comments! Now I can move to ellpointoz. Cheers, Bill