On 22 Apr., 23:31, Simon King <[email protected]> wrote:
> PS:
>
> On 22 Apr., 23:13, Simon King <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I like Umwandlung! It sounds rather natural to say "Es gibt eine
> > kanonische Umwandlung von ZZ nach GF(5)".
>
> That said: How would one express the difference between "conversion"
> and "canonical coercion"?
> Example:
> sage: R1.<a,b> = ZZ[]
> sage: R2 = ZZ['d','e']
>
> This is conversion from an element of R1 to R2:
> sage: R2(a)
> d
> But there is no canonical coercion between R1 and R2, and actually no
> parent structure R3 with both canonical coercions from R1 to R3 and R2
> to R3. Consequently:
> sage: R1(1) == R2(1)
> False
>
> Do you think the distinction between "Umwandlung" (=conversion) and
> "kanonische Umwandlung" (=coercion) is strong enough?
>
Hi Simon,
I don't think "coercion" should be "kanonische Umwandlung", since
there might be canonical coercions as well as non-canonical ones. I
think I like "Wandlung" as the common umbrella term for both
"coercion" ("Umwandlung", I like that, too) and "conversion" (for the
latter I'd propose: "Verwandlung" --- but "Konversion" might do as
well, and would be a good memory hook for what is what).
Cheers,
Georg
> Best regards
> Simon
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
> [email protected]
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
> URL:http://www.sagemath.org
--
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
