#15303: Coercion discovery fails to be transitive
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nbruin | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.13
Component: coercion | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Simon King | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues: Analyse recursion
Branch: | error
u/SimonKing/ticket/15303 | Commit:
Dependencies: #14711 | 74821fe5409c3104b5d6eb7407a8287d54170df9
| Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by SimonKing):
I think the attached branch ''is'' a progress towards a coercion system
with a cleaner model. Even if there would remain rough edges.
My strategy: I'll try to analyse the remaining recursion errors, since
this is likely to point us to fundamental flows. In the best case, the
analysis will result in a better (formulation of) the model.
Currently, I am studying the following very simple example:
{{{
sage: L.<i> = NumberField(x^2 + 1); L
Number Field in i with defining polynomial x^2 + 1
sage: K, from_K, to_K = L.change_generator(i/2 + 3)
<Recursion boom>
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15303#comment:43>
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.
