> > > >> > >> I think we should change is_prime for rational numbers, since people > >> get confused by this so much. > >> > >> How? Pretty much any change at all would be better than the current > >> situation. Options I can think of: > >> > >> - make is_prime([rational]) raise an error and tell the user what to do > >> - look at what is_prime([rational]) does in Pari, Mathematica, etc., > >> and do the same thing > >> - make is_prime([rational]) return is_prime(ZZ([rational])) -- this > >> would be a change that would potentially silently break some code, but > >> is what many people expect. > >> > > > > Why not have two? The problem is that everyone knows what is_prime() is > > supposed to do -- it's supposed to tell you if a number is prime. Except > > it doesn't always do that, it does some abstract mumbo jumbo whenever > > you don't have an integer (even if you do "have an integer"). > > > > We could leave is_prime() for humans, and have is_prime_in_ring() for > > people who know what that means. > > That would be much better than the current situation. > > Wasn't this discussed not long ago, though, with the conclusion to leave it as is? Sorry if I'm not remembering correctly.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
