#15192: add is_unit() for residue fields
-------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Reporter: saraedum | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: trivial | Milestone: sage-6.0
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Julian Rueth | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: u/saraedum/ticket/15192 | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by saraedum):
Thanks for having a look at this.
Replying to [comment:5 pbruin]:
> Actually, it seems that ''every'' finite field element 'a' has the above
problem.
That's scary.
> Finite field elements should be made to inherit from field elements!
I agree. I wonder if there is a reason why they don't?
In any case, should `Ring` really define `is_unit`? Isn't the idea that
elements figure these things out depending on their parent, i.e., whether
they are a unit depends on the parent. Putting this into the category
framework seems to be the right thing. (Notice that `is_unit` was already
there for `Fields()`). So is there any benefit of such an implementation
in `Ring`? Don't all rings live in the category of `Rings()` now?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15192#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.
