#9390: is_galois_relative() not always right
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reporter: arminstraub | Owner: davidloeffler
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6.1
Component: number fields | Keywords: galois extension
Author: Francis Clarke | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Marco Streng | Merged:
Work_issues: |
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Changes (by fwclarke):
* status: needs_work => needs_review
Comment:
Replying to [comment:4 mstreng]:
> I think it would be better to put your new code in `is_galois` of
absolute fields instead of `is_galois_absolute` of relative fields. Then
`is_galois_absolute()` can simply call `self.absolute_field().is_galois()`
I've done this in a new replacement patch, and dealt with the grammatical
point you raised.
It was also necessary to make a minor change to an unconnected doctest.
This is because of PARI's inconsistent behaviour when choosing ideal
generators. The same issue arose in #5842.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9390#comment:5>
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 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.
