2010/1/20 Nicolas M. Thiery <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr>: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:43:00AM -0800, Jason Grout wrote: >> >I'd rather have it called `echelon_form`, so I vote for leaving >> >echelon_form as is. Jason's current change has the merit of pleasing >> >everyone. If there is a strong majority for further changing >> >`echelon_form`, then please make sure to keep it available under some >> >alternative name. >> >> >> Yes, as I understood it, the original plan was to make the current >> echelon_form instead be called hermite_form. > > Which would then do standard Gauss elimination over a field. Hmm. I > find this rather misleading, so -1. echelon_form is such a nice name > for the generic thing. But that's just my view, and I am coming late > in the discussion. >
What do you mean by the "generic thing"? I have never heard the term "echelon form" used except over a field. Over rings there are other forms, e.g. Smith, Hermite (depending on the ring of course). I don't think *anyone* is suggesting that calling hermite_form() on an integer matrix would return the echelon form of the corresponding rational matrix! John > Cheers, > Nicolas > -- > Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net> > http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/ > > -- > 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 > >
-- 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
