-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 481
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
use PARI's fflog() for binary finite fields #32842
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Author: Lorenz Panny |
Commit: |
New commits:
|
comment:3
The code looks good to me.
in the examples block quite odd. Travis, what do you think? |
comment:4
Are you referring to the English or the example itself? The English is a bit strange to me, and I would phrase it as
|
comment:5
The example, as I usually only see trac tickets mentioned under tests referring to a bug that has been fixed. |
comment:6
I think the example is fine, although it could be made better by having something that takes a really long time (>10s, even better >30s) prior but finishes within 1 second now. |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:8
Replying to @tscrim:
It does: The |
Reviewer: Edgar Costa, Travis Scrimshaw |
comment:9
The patch bot was green before :) |
comment:10
Thank you! |
Changed branch from public/use_pari_fflog_for_binary_finite_fields to |
Currently,
FiniteField_ntl_gf2eElement
calls generic-groupdiscrete_log()
to compute logarithms.The patch instead calls PARI's
fflog()
, which uses an index-calculus algorithm and is dramatically faster in some cases.Sage 9.4:
This patch:
Examples with highly non-smooth
2^k-1
, such ask=61
, showcase even larger differences. Examples with very smooth2^k-1
are occasionally a little bit faster using the naïve code, but after playing around with this for a while I concluded that figuring out which algorithm to use ahead of time is no less costly than just letting PARI deal with it.The patch does make sure to pass the (at this point, already cached) factorization of
2^k-1
to PARI so we don't factor again.CC: @tscrim @edgarcosta
Component: number theory
Author: Lorenz Panny
Branch/Commit:
9ba60e7
Reviewer: Edgar Costa, Travis Scrimshaw
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/32842
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: