On Sep 19, 2:33 pm, Rob Beezer <goo...@beezer.cotse.net> wrote:
> I think (2) is the best solution, and still viable. It strikes me as
> a case of "explicit is better." If you know you are over a non-field,
> then you can request hermite_form() and get what you are after,
> staying within your non-field. If you don't know better, or don't
> care, having echelon_form() promote your base ring to a field (often
> objectionable among developers) will then get you there.
>
Yes. I also like William's comment about Linear Algebra not having
changed that much. Honestly, I assumed that had already made it in!
- kcrisman
> I view the request for echelon form as asking for leading ones in each
> row (the form of the result) and you won't generally get that without
> division, so the call gives permission to adjust the base ring. If
> you don't want your ring messed with, call for hermite form and live
> with what you get back.
>
> Rob
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
