You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We currently use floating arithmetic for doing the row echelon form that might create numerical rounding error, we could have an option to use exact arithmetic.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
You may ask for the exact version by calling symmetry_adapted_basis(Rational{BigInt}, G, ...), or for a float one by symmetry_adapted_basis(Float64, G, ...).
Both will give you blocks of Cyclotomics (with coeffs in Rational{BigInt}, or Float64s), so you will need to convert these to actual Rational{BigInt}s or Float64s by yourself. Note that the latter conversion may fail since Cyclotomics represent algebraic numbers, which may be real, but irrational.
Excellent! Yes, converting from Cyclotomic{Rational{BigInt}} to Rational{BigInt} may be hopeless but we could convert it to Float64, BigFloat, ... with I assume less rounding errors that if the row echelon was done in floating point arithmetic too.
We currently use floating arithmetic for doing the row echelon form that might create numerical rounding error, we could have an option to use exact arithmetic.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: