Assessment 2 knuth book

Since the subresultant prs algorithm restricts the

Info icon This preview shows pages 25–27. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Since the subresultant PRS algorithm restricts the coefficient growth to a linear Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, Voh 18, No. 4, October 1971
Image of page 25

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Euclid's Algorithm and Computation of Polynomial GCD' s 503 rate comparable to that which often occurs in a primitive PRS, and at the same time avoids the need for recursive applications to inflated coefficients, it appears to satisfy the most optimistic criteria that could be set for Algorithm C. Nevertheless, it may require the production of subresultants much larger than either the given polynomials or their GCD. Algorithm ~[ avoids this difficulty by taking a fundamentally different approach. The given polynomials are first projected by modular mappings into one or more simpler domains in which images of the GCD can more easily be computed. The true GCD is then constructed from these images with the aid of the Chinese re- mainder algorithm. Since the same method is used for the required GCD computa- tions in the image spaces, it is only necessary to apply Euclid's algorithm to integers and to univariate polynomials with coefficients in a finite field. This modular approach is especially well suited to the problem of GCD computa- tion, because the desired GCD is typically smaller than the given polynomials, and this limits the required number of images. In particular when the GCD is unity, a single image is usually sufficient. Of critical importance to both Algorithm C and Algorithm 5'[ is the existence of a small multiple of the GCD whose leading coefficient can be computed with negligible effort. Otherwise, it would be necessary in Algorithm 2~I to obtain enough images to build the associated subresultant, whose coefficients might be very large, and it would be necessary in both algorithms to compute the primitive part of that subresultant. A striking difference between the two algorithms is that Algorithm S views a polynomial in Z[xl, • • • , x~] as a univariate polynomial in some main variable, with polynomial coefficients, while Algorithm M treats it directly as a multivariate polynomial with integer coefficients. It is easy to see that Algorithm M profits greatly from the resulting speed of operations on the larger number of smaller co- efficients. This same idea is applied in the image space Zp [xl, • • • , x~], whose poly- nomials are viewed by Algorithm P as polynomials in the variables x~, ... , x,_~ with coefficients in Zp[x,]. In our stady of computing times, we obtained asymptotic bounds on the maximum computing times for the two algorithms, with the aid of several simplifying assump- tions which we believe to be realistic. Furthermore we showed that the maximum computing time for Algorithm ~,i is strictly dominated by the maximum computing time for the first pseudo-division in Algorithm C, in the region v _> 2. This dramat- ically illustrates the superiority of the modular approach for GCD computations in which the given polynomials are sdfficiently large and sufficiently dense.
Image of page 26
Image of page 27
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern