#13214: Frobenius endomorphism over finite fields
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Reporter: caruso | Owner: AlexGhitza
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.11
Component: basic arithmetic | Resolution:
Keywords: frobenius finite fields | Work issues: does not build
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Paul Zimmermann
Authors: Xavier Caruso | Merged in:
Dependencies: #13184 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Changes (by caruso):
* status: needs_work => needs_review
Old description:
> Here is a patch implementing:
>
> 1. Frobenius endomorphisms over finite fields (generic implementation,
> plus special implementations for prime finite fields and givaro finite
> fields)
> 1. embeddings between finite fields (with again a special implementation
> for givaro finite fields)
> 1. hashing and rich comparisons for general morphisms
>
> ----
> Apply: [attachment:trac_13214_hom_finite_field.2.patch]
>
> Or:
> [http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/13184/trac_13184_homset_unique_parent
> trac_13184_homset_unique_parent] and
> [attachment:trac_13214_hom_finite_field.patch]
New description:
Here is a patch implementing:
1. Frobenius endomorphisms over finite fields (generic implementation,
plus special implementations for prime finite fields and givaro finite
fields)
1. embeddings between finite fields (with again a special implementation
for givaro finite fields)
1. hashing and rich comparisons for general morphisms
----
Apply: [attachment:trac_13214_hom_finite_field.patch]
--
Comment:
I've just posted a patch that should apply on sage-5.10 (let's wait and
see).
Jean-Pierre, I was actually not aware about your work with David Roe on
lattices of finite fields. I had a quick look at what you have
implemented. Unfortunately, it seems to me that our philosophy is a bit
different: if I understand correctly, you are trying to make all finite
fields canonical whereas my idea was to ask explicitely to the user which
embeddings (between finite fields) are canonical and which ones are not.
But, you're right. We should definitely understand precisely how our
respective patches relate and merge them if necessary (or discard one of
them, i.e. mine).
Note: Actually, my main motivation for this patch was to implement
Frobenius endomorphisms. I think you patch does not provide this
functionality. Is that correct?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13214#comment:23>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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 http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
