Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make NRoot more formal #741

Open
denisrosset opened this issue Oct 16, 2018 · 1 comment
Open

Make NRoot more formal #741

denisrosset opened this issue Oct 16, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@denisrosset
Copy link
Collaborator

Currently, it is not clear whether NRoot provides n-th roots, polynomial root-finding (not present), or arbitrary powers (present, but unimplemented for Algebraic = throws).

@erikerlandson
Copy link
Contributor

erikerlandson commented Mar 7, 2022

Would be interested in having NRoot make it's way into algebra, with some laws, or at least a concept truncating vs non-truncating types, similar to / vs tquot

maybe pow vs tpow. I imagine you could define fpow for "floor of power" but I'm only interested in tpow

I'm told that only BigInt is lawfully tquot and Int and Long are not. If Int and Long need ally-cats support I'd like that

FWIW my use cases on coulomb need v.pow(r) or v.tpow(r) where r is rational, so either supporting v.pow(<double>) and v.tpow(<double>), or pow(<int>) and root(<int>) would be sufficient

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants