Talk:Cipolla's algorithm: Difference between revisions
→Delete this task?
(tentative explanation) |
|||
Line 95:
:::: My supporting evidences for proposing this as a task are : it works (and not only with bogus examples), there is a proof it works, it's interesting (our discussion) , and its implementation is relatively easy.--[[User:G.Brougnard|G.Brougnard]] ([[User talk:G.Brougnard|talk]]) 15:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::::: It's not the same. For one thing, the square root of -6 is a different value from the square root of 7. So, if you are going to be drawing analogies, you should consider something more general than complex numbers. And if you consider quaternions, octonions, sedenion, ... you will notice that as you generalize you lose fundamental arithmetic identities.
::::: Anyways, back to Fp, it's only valid for an integer domain. And by making ω² a non-square you have guaranteed that ω violates the rules of Fp.
::::: In other words, ω cannot be a symbol in Fp, nor in Fp² (though ω² remains a valid value in both).
::::: That said, I see that you now have an echolisp implementation - I'll see if I can extract the actual algorithm from that. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
| |||