#16651: Buggy to_poly_solve option
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: gagern | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: critical | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: symbolics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Volker Braun | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/vbraun/buggy_to_poly_solve | 6fb6bee3a7ef1f692656f615f9361c9e52afeec1
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by kcrisman):
> Cc-ing kcrisman since his commit
[http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/commit/?id=3278794b9a63e706b9ccef52435575a79f9a64ce
3278794] for #6642 introduced the use of `to_poly_solve=True` for
`NumberFieldElement`, without any example of when this might be of use.
Can you give an example of when this would be useful?
This was because of comment:7:ticket:6642. Basically, the problem is that
Barton's `to_poly_solve` stuff depends on `algsys` which does not
guarantee exact solutions, though it very often gives them. But in order
for that doctest to work we made that change, as you can see by reading
the full set of comments on the ticket.
But I'm very happy if someone cleans up whatever code I contributed so
long ago - I wrangled over that in various ways to make sure that if
somebody really wanted a solution they would get one, but it was certainly
just to get things done. Thanks for looking into it!
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16651#comment:12>
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.
