#13347: Check doctest examples using QuotientRings, which do not fulfill the
assumptions made on the ideal
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Reporter: tfeulner | Owner: mvngu
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.3
Component: doctest | Keywords:
Work issues: | Report Upstream: N/A
Reviewers: | Authors:
Merged in: | Dependencies:
Stopgaps: |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
The following files use quotient rings in their doctest examples, which
contradict the assumption on the defining ideal:
ASSUMPTION:
``I`` has a method ``I.reduce(x)`` returning the normal form
of elements `x\in R`. In other words, it is required that
``I.reduce(x)==I.reduce(y)`` `\iff x-y \in I`, and
``x-I.reduce(x) in I``, for all `x,y\in R`.
- sage/categories/pushout.py : line 2393
- sage/categories/rings.py : lines 446, 482, 522
- sage/structure/category_object.pyx : line 473
- sage/rings/quotient_ring_element.py : lines 56, 98, 208
- sage/rings/morphism.pyx : line 465
- sage/rings/ring.pyx: lines 409, 708, 792
These examples have to be modified, one possibility is that they use
quotient rings which fulfill the assumption or the reduce function of the
corresponding ideal class must be provided.
See also trac:13345 and https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-
devel/s5y604ZPiQ8/discussion.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13347>
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.
