#14990: Implement algebraic closures of finite fields
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  pbruin             |        Owner:
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_work
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-6.2
      Component:  algebra            |   Resolution:
       Keywords:  finite field       |    Merged in:
  algebraic closure                  |    Reviewers:
        Authors:  Peter Bruin        |  Work issues:
Report Upstream:  N/A                |       Commit:
         Branch:  u/pbruin/14990     |  f9162dbae92551a67aea7a489d96591141fdebc8
   Dependencies:  #14958, #13214     |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by pbruin):

 Hi Vincent,
 > 2) It makes sense to have something more flexible like
 > {{{
 > sage: AC = AlgebraicClosureFiniteField_pseudo_conway
 > sage: AC(GF(3), lattice=my_pc_lattice)
 > }}}
 > where "my_pc_lattice" is an instance of a subclass or
 `PseudoConwayLattice` or something with the same specifications (i.e. at
 least a method `polynomial`). That way we can already have two
 implementations of the algebraic closure (calling `PseudoConwayLattice`
 with the option `use_database=True` or `use_database=False`).
 This is implemented in one of the two new commits; one can now pass a
 `lattice` argument, and the `use_database` flag is now accepted here as
 well.
 > 3) In the example above, there is some redundancy as the pseudo-Conway
 lattice already knows the finite field... so it would be nice if the
 pseudo-Conway lattice implements a method `base_ring` that returns the
 finite field it is based on.
 It already has a public attribute `p` for the characteristic; since the
 PCL is not really meant to be used directly anyway, I think it is
 redundant to also add a `base_ring()` method.
 > 4) It would also make sense in `PseudoConwayLattice` to have a method
 `associated_finite_field_algebraic_closure` (with a better name if
 possible).
 I agree with Jean-Pierre here; this doesn't seem to be useful.  To
 compare, we don't have (and don't need) a method
 `associated_finite_field()` for polynomials over '''F''',,''p'',, either.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14990#comment:71>
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/d/optout.

Reply via email to