#15348: "R.<a> =" syntactic sugar incorrect for EquationOrder and ZZ.extension
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  emassop            |        Owner:
           Type:  defect             |       Status:  needs_review
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-7.0
      Component:  number fields      |   Resolution:
       Keywords:                     |    Merged in:
        Authors:  Jeroen Demeyer     |    Reviewers:
Report Upstream:  N/A                |  Work issues:
         Branch:                     |       Commit:
  u/jdemeyer/ticket/15348            |  dac0a4cdb957393b282619213dc231f55cf55cc4
   Dependencies:                     |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by emassop):

 I don't really like unconditionally preferring `ring_generators()` in such
 a general place as `_first_n_gens()` is. Perhaps this should be something
 like `defining_generators()` instead of `ring_generators()`. This would be
 set when defining something by generators, and always refer to the
 generators from the definition. That said, s/ring/defining/ can be done
 later, so out of pragmatism I'm not against the current approach.

 However, the current approach with `ring_generators()` doesn't always work
 as expected, which could be considered be a separate bug (namely lack of
 prepopulating ring_generators if defining something by ring generators).
 For instance
 {{{
 K.<i> = NumberField(x^2+1)
 O = K.order(-i+1)
 gens = O.ring_generators()
 if gens == [-i+1]:
   print "O.<a> = K.order(-i+1) would work as expected"
 else:
   print "O.<a> = K.order(-i+1) would make a equal to %r, not as -i+1 as
 expected." % gens[0]
 }}}
 prints
 {{{
 O.<a> = K.order(-i+1) would make a equal to i, not as -i+1 as expected.
 }}}
 on https://sagecell.sagemath.org/.

 What do you think? Which `?_gens` should generally be used and should
 populating `?_gens` with the defining generators be separate bugs?

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15348#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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to