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
Add a __float__ method to the class Universal Cyclotomic Field #16120
Comments
Branch: u/vripoll/ticket16120 |
Commit: |
comment:2
What is wrong with using CLF rather than CDF? If the former is possible, I would prefer to use it. New commits:
|
New commits:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:4
I don't know, but what is better with CLF? A timing test is favorable towards CDF:
|
Author: Vivien Ripoll |
comment:6
Replying to @sagetrac-vripoll:
The ComplexLazyField gives you as much precision as you want, while the ComplexDoubleField is restricted
|
comment:7
Replying to @stumpc5:
But Vivien: wouldn't a |
Reviewer: Frédéric Chapoton |
comment:8
I have corrected the doctest, that was failing. And also changed to ValueError And also used python3 syntax This looks good to me. If nobody else disagrees, and my changes are ok, you can set to positive review. New commits:
|
Changed branch from u/vripoll/ticket16120 to public/ticket/16120 |
comment:10
I was working on this review but you are all too fast for me :) I have some issues with testing this method.
Meaning that somewhere the rounding is not correct (at least for the imaginary As your number is already real, i would prefer to do What do you think about this ? By the way, it could be nice to be able to have That said:
Meaning that |
Changed reviewer from Frédéric Chapoton to Frédéric Chapoton, Thierry Monteil |
comment:11
Replying to @sagetrac-tmonteil:
I prefer the current version, because, as far as I understand, the test that
Sure. But not necessarily as part of this ticket.
From That being said, I agree that the conversion from
|
comment:12
Replying to @sagetrac-tmonteil:
Hmm, are you referring to the docstring of |
comment:13
Thank you Fred for your review and correction of syntax. Thanks Marc and Thierry for the technical discussion, I'm learning a lot! I'll wait for some consensus before doing any change. |
comment:14
So, what remains to be done here ? |
comment:15
Replying to @fchapoton:
I don't know: I am happy with the patch as it is, but Thierry seemed to disagree, and I'd like to hear his opinion on my last few comments... |
comment:16
Replying to [comment:11]:
You are right about the timings (the
Of course, this was only a suggestion for a further work on universal cyclotomic field.
Because the method Replying to [comment:12]:
Yes, this is meaningless and i plan to fix it soon, see #16163. It should not cost much more time than now to have the right rounding since the current method already uses MPFI, it is only a matter of used digits (the current choice could have made sense if it was using CPU 53 bits precision arithmetics). Replying to [comment:15]:
If you are all ok with the current implementation, i am fine with it, especially i understood that this method is created for plotting. I will make stronger tests, if necessary i will open a new ticket, but i do not want to block this. |
Changed reviewer from Frédéric Chapoton, Thierry Monteil to Frédéric Chapoton, Marc Mezzarobba, Thierry Monteil |
Changed branch from public/ticket/16120 to |
There is currently no
__float__
method for the class Universal Cyclotomic Field. For example:We would like something such as:
This ticket is a prerequisite to #15703.
CC: @jplab @stumpc5 @sagetrac-sage-combinat @sagetrac-tmonteil
Component: number fields
Keywords: Cyclotomic field, float, days57
Author: Vivien Ripoll
Branch/Commit:
e5e01d0
Reviewer: Frédéric Chapoton, Marc Mezzarobba, Thierry Monteil
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16120
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: