Talk:Schönhage–Strassen algorithm

message: Not only does this link lead nowhere, which made me have to google it myself, but what does this reference have to do with long integer multiplication ??? Dr. Universe (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to "Fast quantum modular exponentiation" 

message: I've recently studied and implemented this algorithm and am in the process of expanding it with a lot more detail, enough to enable implementation. Dcoetzee 11:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: I removed this text from the article:
:the arithmetic complexity is O(N log N). (Peter Bürgisser, Michael Clausen and Amin Shokrollahi, Algebraic Complexity Theory, 1997. Springer-Verlag, .)
I don't have access to this source, so it might really say this. However, the term "arithmetic complexity" is not a widely-accepted one (I couldn't find even one explanation of what it is on the web that makes sense in this context). Assuming they're talking about the number of (arbitrary-precision) additions and multiplications performed, without regard for their size, this is pretty silly, since you could easily replace the algorithm by one of "arithmetic complexity" 1 (just multiply the inputs). If on the other hand they're talking about the number of word-size arithmetic operations, then this is simply incorrect (it uses O(n log n log log n) of those). Dcoetzee 14:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed reference to arithmetic complexity 

message: In fact source code is even there. That library is a big one, and appears to be used. https://github.com/orcca-uwo/BPAS/issues/1  here is even paper in acm. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3326229.3326273 Valery Zapolodov (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fürer exists now 

message: After a series of several hundred edits in July, this article has been degraded in a number of areas.  In particular, prose style and general understandability.  (Compare the current revision with .)   While the old article was not especially great either, at least it was vaguely understandable.  I don't know what the path forward is, but the current state of affairs strikes me as untenable.  It might be worth restoring the pre-July version, and then incrementally adding any salvageable details from the revision.  Tito Omburo (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that the changes made the article significantly less accessible. The IP editor who made them was apparently expecting a much more advanced audience than the previous version did. I think it's worth trying to explain this for the widest practical audience at least at the beginning. –jacobolus (t) 01:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found that just reading the full algorithm from Crandall and Pomerance, without reading any of their explanation, is actually more informative than reading the first sections of the article.  The biggest problem for me is that this article spends too much space in the early sections discussing things inline that are not that essential to a proper understanding.  The FFT is described inline, the term "NTT" is confusing.  Various (I guess) optimizations are done inline, rather than deferred.  Another problem is that parts of it seem to be mathematically incorrect.  For example, the ring that is referred to as GF(2^n+1) need not be a field.  The more I look, the more problems there are.  Tito Omburo (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article degradation