#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:12 vbraun]:
> Mathematically, they are of course not the same. But as far as the
implementation goes, both are lists of polynomials with some methods
attached. I don't understand your comment about finiteness, you can't
generate a non-finitely generated ideal in Sage, nor could you construct
the requisite infinite polynomial ring to evade Hilberts basis theorem.
Moreover, I don't understand your comment about the `interreduced_basis`
method in the ideal class. Where else but as a method of the ideal class
should we define this functionality in OOP?
I meant infinite but finitely generated which is for example relevant for
set operations on them. Another example is reduction: reduction modulo the
ideal is different from reduction modulo a list of polynomials. The method
`interreduced_basis` assumes a particular basis for the ideal, i.e.
violates the distinction between ideal and a list of polynomials. I'd say
we should aim to have methods on ideals deal with ideals instead of the
particular basis the user chose when constructing it.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1819#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 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.
