Talk:Elliptic curve arithmetic: Difference between revisions
m (→multiple additions vs. multiplication: used a better composite number (for comparisons).) |
m (→multiple additions vs. multiplication: shortened the arrow.) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
I think it would be beneficial if the first ten multiples (1 |
I think it would be beneficial if the first ten multiples (1 ──► 12) would be shown so we could compare ''true addition'' via ''multiplicative'' results. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:53, 4 April 2016
what is secp256k1 ?
What is secp256k1 (as mentioned in the Rosetta Codes task's preamble:
- You will use the a and b parameters of secp256k1, ... .
-- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
multiple additions vs. multiplication
(Regarding the extra credit part of the task.)
Has anybody done more research on performing N additions versus multiplication (as the EchoLisp example has done?
There certainly seems to be a difference on how the multiplication is implemented. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Initially, I performed N additions (via the add function) and kept getting much different results than the other programming examples (for 12345 repetitions).
I think it would be beneficial if the first ten multiples (1 ──► 12) would be shown so we could compare true addition via multiplicative results. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)