On 11/21/2012 10:53 PM, Simon King wrote:
Hi all!
On 2012-11-21, P Purkayastha <ppu...@gmail.com> wrote:
In fact, the behavior in Sage is *inconsistent*, and I think in this
particular case, the inconsistency should get priority of getting fixed
over trying to enforce rigor.:
I wouldn't think it is a fix, *unless* it is done in a rigorous way.
What's the problem here? We can devide the elements of one integral domain
R1 by some elements of another integral domain R2, but (for good reasons!)
we can't multiply elements of R1 with elements of the fraction field of R2.
A potential solution (and it could be that this is what you suggested)
is to say: If there is a coercion map phi of R2 into R1, then Frac(R2)
acts on R1 by multiplication, via (p/q)*r1 = phi(p)*r1/phi(q).
What I am asking for is quite simple. If I see a fractional element f =
p/q during multiplication or division (like p/q*alpha) then in the
appropriate operation, I would simply run
self(f.numerator())/self(f.denominator())*alpha.
Probably there are more efficient ways of doing this. This brings me to
the last problem:
GF(5)(3) + 2/3 or 2/3 + GF(5)(3), both result in errors. If we allow
multiplication, then again there is an inconsistency with addition and
subtraction. Any ideas what should be done here? Is it always correct to
coerce to the finite field?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
