|
Loïc Grenié on Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:29:08 +0100
|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: New gp function fold()
|
- To: pari-dev@pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr
- Subject: Re: New gp function fold()
- From: Loïc Grenié <loic.grenie@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:28:56 +0100
- Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:29:08 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TuTA/7PKP7XUtJ0LyovUb+UD2VYK7LLR/B1iWtCEGco=; b=nY8R1IUQ+nFCVm8eur/Uu83liMoqVJolzBw+y1CIAY63mY14v2+k5vT33zUqPC8IT2 wupXSKubmE+gAJ6QwmmSrEa5yK/5lyu0GIouUfAOL5LbqVnG3hylqp1N87oU4NG7j7bB QcXZA9x/h8Ws7jQxc8yjrOFlOqM6JDVJmBGFuniP8ZVtZQhKt0txfJ81l1yHDrV/+XVL 7hMiFF+vFHl1tjTlTwlG3TXq9cPoUKA/+hDtxEcnDzyNRyRoinUjMIa78i2sH6p8Q/ag KfOq8lu+NwhrgKTjRSb1TfeuI7DNkmiiErat3vM27Wyg1GuKO3oAMLL5fF9geCcxhJ2T kUkA==
- In-reply-to: <20141125210532.GE11538@yellowpig>
- References: <20141125192707.GC11538@yellowpig> <CAAkfSGJ_7E3K9aKdyxHYJ1is8i84tPrZ-aj2MUBzHFOPwFDiEw@mail.gmail.com> <20141125210532.GE11538@yellowpig>
2014-11-25 22:05 GMT+01:00 Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux.fr>:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 03:08:26PM -0500, Charles Greathouse wrote:
>> We might consider a function (or flag) that folds by binary splitting. For
>> example, this could be used to keep subproducts small:
>
> Binary splitting is not necessarily useful for all associative operations.
Thus it sounds like a flag is useful !
> This is mostly useful for multiplication, and factorback() and lcm() already
> handles this case. Do you have other examples ?
>
> But as you say, the issue is that it would be awkward to document for
> non-associative operations.
Doc: if the operation is not associative, the result is random.
Loïc