#6044: [with patch, positive review] Enhanced reduction modulo ideals of number
fields
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mtaranes | Owner: somebody
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.0.2
Component: number theory | Keywords: number fields, ideals
Reviewer: | Author:
Merged: |
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Comment(by davidloeffler):
Good stuff; it will be much more efficient to use hermite form rather than
smith form in residues, besides being more canonical.
I have rebased the patch to 4.0.1, and checked that it commutes with #5842
and #6188. All tests in sage/rings/number_field pass still (on a 32-bit
machine), as do those in sage/doc/en/bordeaux_2008 (which have a habit of
catching out unwary number theory patch authors).
This one has been in limbo for three weeks because the trac reports of
patches with review / needing review / etc are done using text searches of
the summary field, and thus "with review, needs second opinion" doesn't
get picked up. I guess it would be safer to set it to "needs review", but
this strikes me as conclusive proof that we need to change the way we use
trac -- this is the *fifth* ticket I've spotted today which has been in
limbo because of a slightly unusual summary string.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6044#comment:5>
Sage <http://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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
