Timeline for On existence of rapid Arithmetic geometric procedure?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Feb 24, 2017 at 11:37 | comment | added | Fredrik Johansson | @Turbo I meant that Newton iteration for computing algebraic numbers is faster than AGM iteration itself, regardless of whether the AGM can be used to compute algebraic numbers. | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 2:38 | comment | added | Turbo | @FredrikJohansson what is the AGM technique for algebraic numbers? | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 3:10 | comment | added | David Ketcheson | I don't believe this is related to numerical analysis. | |
| Sep 21, 2015 at 1:08 | history | edited | Turbo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 187 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2015 at 1:06 | comment | added | Turbo | @FredrikJohansson So could you elaborate the AGM technique for algebraic numbers? | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 23:00 | comment | added | Fredrik Johansson | With regard to 2., for all algebraic numbers, Newton iteration has even lower computational complexity than AGM (faster by a $\log(n)$ factor). I don't know about AGM iteration for $\zeta(2n+1)$, but there are other algorithms that are almost as fast (slower by a $\log^c(n)$ factor). | |
| Sep 20, 2015 at 8:03 | history | asked | Turbo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |