#14403: Symbolic charpoly broken
-----------------------------+--------------------------
Reporter: nbruin | Owner: burcin
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.11
Component: symbolics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Dependencies:
Stopgaps: |
-----------------------------+--------------------------
Comment (by ppurka):
Replying to [comment:5 eviatarbach]:
> Thanks for taking on this ticket! It's a big problem.
>
> There is in fact a way to generate unique variable names; just call
`SR.symbol()`. This will ensure that there are no collisions.
That's true, but that generates ugly symbol names, which might be
confusing to read in a long characteristic polynomial. I like the solution
proposed in the patch a little better. For example, here is what I get
from `SR.symbol()`
{{{
sage: SR.symbol()
symbol160
sage: SR.symbol()
symbol163
sage: SR.symbol()
symbol166
}}}
Is there some general way of asking for the "next" symbol given some
pattern? Essentially, emulating what a part of this patch does. Something
which behaves like this:
{{{
sage: SR.next_variable('x') # suppose x, x0, x1 are already defined
x2
sage: SR.next_variable('x2')
x3
sage: SR.next_variable('x0y') # suppose that x0y is not yet defined.
x0y
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14403#comment:6>
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.
