#1819: move crypto.mq.MPolynomialSystem somewhere else
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Reporter: malb | Owner: malb
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6.2
Component: commutative algebra | Keywords:
Author: Martin Albrecht | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Comment(by malb):
Replying to [comment:10 vbraun]:
> Having said that, I don't understand why we need both `MPolynomialIdeal`
and
> `PolynomialSequence`. It seems to be that both are essentially
containers for
> polynomials in a common ring. Maybe the methods of `PolynomialSequence`
could just
> be merged with the ideal code? Do you have any thoughts about that?
I disagree with merging the two. Ideal are not the same as sequences of
polynomials: ideals may be infinite, but our polynomial sequences are
always finite. Furthermore, some methods don't make sense on ideals but do
make sense for sequences of polynomials such as interreduction and weil
restriction. That we have those methods on ideals now is not proper, I'd
say. Another example: set operations on ideals are different from set
operations on polynomial sequences.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1819#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.
