#10771: gcd and lcm for fraction fields
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
   Reporter:  SimonKing         |       Owner:  AlexGhitza             
       Type:  defect            |      Status:  needs_work             
   Priority:  major             |   Milestone:  sage-4.7               
  Component:  basic arithmetic  |    Keywords:  gcd lcm fraction fields
     Author:  Simon King        |    Upstream:  N/A                    
   Reviewer:  Marco Streng      |      Merged:                         
Work_issues:                    |  
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------

Comment(by lftabera):

 Replying to [comment:7 SimonKing]:
 > I just updated my patch, and I hope it addresses all your remarks. The
 typos are fixed, the old gcd of the rational field is now removed, and: I
 also added gcd/lcm for general fields. I am sorry that this makes #9819 a
 duplicate.

 Please.

 > And I hope that I did not confuse gcd and lcm in the following setting:
 > {{{
 > sage: GF(2)(1).gcd(GF(2)(1))
 > 1
 > sage: GF(2)(1).gcd(GF(2)(0))
 > 1
 > sage: GF(2)(0).gcd(GF(2)(0))
 > 0
 > sage: GF(2)(1).lcm(GF(2)(0))
 > 0
 > sage: GF(2)(1).lcm(GF(2)(1))
 > 1
 > }}}
 > That's implemented as element methods for the category of `Fields()`.
 Somehow, the category framework is cool, isn't it?

 I do not full understand this, but I am happy that works.

 Some thoughts:

 For QQ and the like, could it be that gcd and lcm should only take care of
 coercing to a good setting and then the real algorithm should be in _lcm,
 _gcd? Note that QQ already has ._gcd and ._lcm so these methods has to be
 taken into account.

 For generic Fields, It should appear in the documentation that the methods
 return 0 if both arguments are zero and a non-zero element otherwise. The
 user should not suppose that the non-zero element is actually one, since
 this is changed by subclasses.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10771#comment:11>
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.

Reply via email to