#13379: Add a splitting field function for polynomials over a finite field
------------------------------------------------+--------------------------
Reporter: abrochard | Owner:
Type: enhancement | davidloeffler
Priority: major | Status:
Component: algebra | needs_review
Keywords: | Milestone: sage-5.11
Authors: Adrien Brochard, Peter Bruin | Resolution:
Report Upstream: N/A | Merged in:
Branch: | Reviewers:
Stopgaps: | Work issues:
| Dependencies: #8335
------------------------------------------------+--------------------------
Changes (by {'newvalue': u'Adrien Brochard, Peter Bruin', 'oldvalue': ''}):
* cc: pbruin (removed)
* dependencies: => #8335
* component: number fields => algebra
* author: => Adrien Brochard, Peter Bruin
Old description:
> The purpose of this patch is to add the splitting_field() function to
> polynomial elements with coefficients in a finite field. For coherence
> purpose, I copied the syntax of the patch proposed for ticket #2217 (hope
> it's ok), which is about splitting field for polynomial over number
> fields. Some of the argument are not used in the function, but again, it
> is for the overall coherence in case of integration of both patches.
New description:
The purpose of this patch is to add the splitting_field() function to
polynomial elements with coefficients in a finite field.
See also #2217, the number field analogue of this ticket.
Apply: [attachment:trac_13379-splitting_field_new.patch]
--
Comment:
I was going to review this, but ended up wanting to change almost
everything, so here is a new version. The doctests are the same as in the
original, up to cosmetic changes.
The new implementation of this function is very short, as suggested by the
above comments. It just computes the degree of the splitting field over
the base field, and then calls the `FiniteField_base.extension()` method
implemented by #8335.
The `map` flag from the original patch is currently not understood, but
for more flexibility, any additional arguments are now passed to
`FiniteField_base.extension()`, which would be the right place to
implement the `map` parameter.
The currently unused parameters have been removed; this ticket will
probably be merged before #2217, and that one might change dramatically
for all we know.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/13379#comment:11>
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.
