> So I don't think it has to do with trac #5491. It is either a problem with
> Sage finite fields, or with translating between Gap finite fields and Sage
> finite fields. I'll have a closer look later today and open a ticket.
>
Indeed, we just don't have the ability to coerce between GF(p^a) and
GF(p^(ab)) when a and b are both larger than one. For instance:
sage: K.<a> = GF(9)
sage: L.<b> = GF(81)
sage: L(a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TypeError Traceback (most recent call last)
/Users/craigcitro/.sage/temp/sharma.local/52679/_Users_craigcitro__sage_init_sage_0.py
in <module>()
----> 1
2
3
4
5
/sage/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sage/rings/finite_field_givaro.so
in sage.rings.finite_field_givaro.FiniteField_givaro.__call__
(sage/rings/finite_field_givaro.cpp:4003)()
528
529
--> 530
531
532
TypeError: unable to coerce from a finite field other than the prime subfield
This is hitting the exact same line that Martin did above -- see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2916 for details. Someone
needs to just sit down and implement this ... I think the relevant
ticket is http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5426. Code for
this exists in the coercion branch, so I think it's mostly a question
of getting that code moved over ...
-cc
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
