https://cocoa.dima.unige.it/redmine/https://cocoa.dima.unige.it/redmine/redmine/favicon.ico?15088260392017-06-21T19:33:15ZCoCoA ProjectCoCoALib - Bug #1082: factor in ZZ[x] gives errorshttps://cocoa.dima.unige.it/redmine/issues/1082?journal_id=62632017-06-21T19:33:15ZJohn Abbott
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>New</i> to <i>In Progress</i></li><li><strong>Assignee</strong> set to <i>John Abbott</i></li><li><strong>% Done</strong> changed from <i>0</i> to <i>10</i></li></ul><p>The problem is content handling. See around line 282 in <code>factor.C</code></p> CoCoALib - Bug #1082: factor in ZZ[x] gives errorshttps://cocoa.dima.unige.it/redmine/issues/1082?journal_id=62642017-06-22T11:13:19ZJohn Abbott
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>In Progress</i> to <i>Feedback</i></li><li><strong>% Done</strong> changed from <i>10</i> to <i>90</i></li><li><strong>Estimated time</strong> set to <i>0.90 h</i></li></ul><p>The old factorizer (in C) actually factorizes over ZZ, so the only fix needed was the handling of the content.</p>
<p>I improved <code>test-factor1.C</code> so that its tests factorization over both QQ and ZZ; also the test example now has non-trivial coeffs, and non-trivial content.</p> CoCoALib - Bug #1082: factor in ZZ[x] gives errorshttps://cocoa.dima.unige.it/redmine/issues/1082?journal_id=62652017-06-22T11:15:01ZJohn Abbott
<ul></ul><p>A quick check suggests that factorization over ZZ is actually slower than factorization over QQ. This is counter-intuitive, but probably not worth fixing... it should be resolved if the factorizer is ever rewritten in C++.</p> CoCoALib - Bug #1082: factor in ZZ[x] gives errorshttps://cocoa.dima.unige.it/redmine/issues/1082?journal_id=64952017-11-08T13:12:46ZJohn Abbott
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>Feedback</i> to <i>Closed</i></li><li><strong>% Done</strong> changed from <i>90</i> to <i>100</i></li></ul><p>Why didn't I give at least one failing example?<br />Anyway, it seems OK now... so closing.</p>