#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:18 vbraun]:
> Replying to [comment:17 malb]:
> it was this method's name which sparked the debate we're having between
William and myself.
>
> We are having? Where? Or you were having at one point (and if yes, did
you decide anything)?
Sorry, my English failed me: William and I had a debate about whether
ideal class == list of polynomials a few years back (October 2006). It was
essentially about the same issue which we are discussion here now (I
realised while double checking that it wasn't about `basis_is_groebner()`
but about the return type of `groebner_basis()`) The decision was: ideals
are objects in their own right in Sage and not lists of polynomials.
Should we move this discussion to [sage-devel]?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1819#comment:19>
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.
