#5484: improve quotients of univariate polynomial rings
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: AlexGhitza | Owner: malb
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: commutative | Resolution:
algebra | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers:
Authors: Bruno Grenet | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 10eaf305bfa53cdffa6a9519f86c477e10eec443
u/bruno/quotient_rings_univariate | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by bruno):
Replying to [comment:12 darij]:
> Sorry, but the new quotient rings don't play well with the quotient ring
interface (or what could be reasonably expected to be the quotient ring
interface):
What do you suggest? I can imagine three solutions:
* Make `R.quotient_by_principal_ideal(R.ideal(2))` return a
`Polynomial_quotient_ring`: I doubt this is in principle impossible, but
at least it requires quite a lot of changes.
* Keep `R.quotient_by_principal_ideal(R.ideal(2))` return a `TypeError`
* Implement a `lift` method for `PolynomialRing_dense_mod_p`.
None of the three solutions is really fine to my mind, so feel free to
suggest another one!
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/5484#comment:13>
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.
