Talk:Cipolla's algorithm: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 01:12, 27 March 2016 (view source) rosettacode>G.Brougnard No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 01:13, 27 March 2016 (view source) rosettacode>G.Brougnard No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 47:		Line 47:
	::: Of course, -6 = 7 for our specific example here (in the Fp² domain where we compare all numbers modulo 13), so you could just as easily plug in the square root of seven. But the result here would still be invalid because the square root of seven is still not an integer. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)		::: Of course, -6 = 7 for our specific example here (in the Fp² domain where we compare all numbers modulo 13), so you could just as easily plug in the square root of seven. But the result here would still be invalid because the square root of seven is still not an integer. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

	:::: Absolutely right. ~~Forgot~~ to mention it in arithmetic in Fp² . It seemed evident due to the mentioned analogy R/C Fp/Fp² . Nevertheless -1 -3ω seems to be as valid as -1 -3i, even if i has no value in R .--[[User:G.Brougnard\|G.Brougnard]] ([[User talk:G.Brougnard\|talk]]) 01:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)		:::: Absolutely right. I forgot to mention it in arithmetic in Fp² . It seemed evident due to the mentioned analogy R/C Fp/Fp² . Nevertheless -1 -3ω seems to be as valid as -1 -3i, even if i has no value in R .--[[User:G.Brougnard\|G.Brougnard]] ([[User talk:G.Brougnard\|talk]]) 01:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)