#8335: Finite Field lattices for (pseudo-)Conway polynomials
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Reporter: roed | Owner: AlexGhitza
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.11
Component: algebra | Resolution:
Keywords: days49 | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Jean-Pierre
Flori, Luca De Feo
Authors: David Roe, Jean-Pierre Flori | Merged in:
Dependencies: #13894 | Stopgaps:
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Comment (by jpflori):
Replying to [comment:81 pbruin]:
> I would personally prefer the first option to keep things better
packaged; this patch seems to make (pseudo-)Conway polynomials pop up in
many different places, and moving them all to one place would require
another intrusive Trac ticket later.
As far as functionalities are concerned, remember that Sage currently does
not support
{{{
K = GF(p^n)
}}}
So pseudo Conway polynomials never appear where they did not use to.
If you issue the command line which is currently supported:
{{{
K.<a> = GF(p^n)
}}}
you will get the exact same behavior as before, unless he specifies
modulus="conway" and wants an extension of too large cardinality; maybe
that should be changed back.
Nevertheless I agree that a user coming from Magma where
{{{
K := GF(p, n);
}}}
works might be confused...
Though the user might although expect embeddings of finite fields to work
out of the box.
But as I just realized I guess your concern is about the dissemination of
code.
From what I see, apart from code in finite_field_base.py, changes to
specific finite field implementations mostly consists in replacing the
part about Conway polynomials and tweak it to work with pseudo-Conway ones
as well.
Nonetheless it's true that properly moving all of that later will be
intrusive.
But what about plain Conway polynomials? Shouldn't that be moved as well?
Or do we consider they are standard enough to belong in the FiniteFields()
category?
But if they do it would be a waste not to use automagically the fact that
they provide simple embeddings into each other, wouldn't it? though it
would make the separation between the plain finite fields and subfields of
a given algebraic closure blurrier.
(As you can guess, I'd prefer to get this merged first especially because
I hate seeing functional code bitrotting for years on trac, but I get your
point :))
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8335#comment:82>
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.
