Oh we finally cleared all doubts.
I found another paper which shows those two approaches.
www.ricam.oeaw.ac.at/conferences/aca08/Pauer.pdf
Thanks for helping.
Bye
On Aug 3, 6:00 pm, Michael Brickenstein brickenst...@mfo.de wrote:
Hi Simon!
Search in the same book for strong Gröbner bases.
Hi Simon,
please change upstream bug that you have reported, because I found that the
problem is in reduce command.
Please read this
Hi Dusan,
On 3 Aug., 14:21, Dušan Orlović duleorlo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
please change upstream bug that you have reported, because I found that the
problem is in reduce command.
Please read this
bookhttp://books.google.com/books?id=Caoxi78WaIACpg=PA201dq=adams+loust...(just
first
Hi!
Please consider the difference between weak and strong Gröbner bases/weak
strong reduction defined in that cited book.
So, you are both right.
Simon is refering to strong GB while Dušan refers to weak GB.
Singular implements strong GB and strong reduction.
Cheers,
Michael
Am 03.08.2010 um
Hi Dusan,
On 3 Aug., 14:21, Dušan Orlović duleorlo...@gmail.com wrote:
Please read this
bookhttp://books.google.com/books?id=Caoxi78WaIACpg=PA201dq=adams+loust...(just
first five pages in chapter 4).
I just did. Perhaps I stand corrected -- at least, Adams and Lusteanu
write that they take
Hi Michael!
On 3 Aug., 17:34, Michael Brickenstein brickenst...@mfo.de wrote:
Hi!
Please consider the difference between weak and strong Gröbner bases/weak
strong reduction defined in that cited book.
So, you are both right.
Simon is refering to strong GB while Dušan refers to weak GB.
Hi Simon!
Search in the same book for strong Gröbner bases.
Cheers,
Michael
Am 03.08.2010 um 17:58 schrieb Simon King:
Hi Dusan,
On 3 Aug., 14:21, Dušan Orlović duleorlo...@gmail.com wrote:
Please read this
bookhttp://books.google.com/books?id=Caoxi78WaIACpg=PA201dq=adams+loust...(just
Hi Simon,
please do this by hand.
for I=R*(4*x^2*y^2+2*x*y^3+3*x*y, 2*x^2+x*y, 2*y^2)
we get f=y*I.0 -2*y^3*I.1 -x*I.2 = x*y^2
We CAN reduce f on [x*y^3, 2*x^2 + x*y, 3*x*y, 2*y^2] to zero because
f = y * (3*x*y) - x * (2*y^2) .
So this gives that [x*y^3, 2*x^2 + x*y, 3*x*y, 2*y^2] is Groebner
Hi Dusan,
On 1 Aug., 11:35, Dušan Orlović duleorlo...@gmail.com wrote:
we get f=y*I.0 -2*y^3*I.1 -x*I.2 = x*y^2
We CAN reduce f on [x*y^3, 2*x^2 + x*y, 3*x*y, 2*y^2] to zero because
f = y * (3*x*y) - x * (2*y^2) .
No, we can't.
You have shown that f belongs to the ideal generated by [x*y^3,
SINGULAR /
Development
A Computer Algebra System for Polynomial Computations / version
3-1-0
0
by: G.-M. Greuel, G. Pfister, H. Schoenemann\ Mar 2009
FB Mathematik der
Hi Dule,
On 30 Jul., 12:03, DuleOrlovic duleorlo...@gmail.com wrote:
...
[x^2*y, x*y^2, 2*x^2 + x*y, 3*x*y, 2*y^2]
... this is wrong result.
Right one is [x*y^3, 2*x^2 + x*y, 3*x*y, 2*y^2]
No, you are wrong. Your expected answer is definitely not correct,
since it does not reduce all
PS:
On 30 Jul., 12:57, Simon King simon.k...@nuigalway.ie wrote:
No, you are wrong. Your expected answer is definitely not correct,
But certainly there is something wrong in Singular/libsingular (which
by default is used in Sage to compute Gröbner bases) as well:
sage:
Hi Simon, thanks for replying,
your example: y*I.0 -2*y^3*I.1 -x*I.2 is x*y^2 which lies in ideal [x*y^3,
2*x^2 + x*y, 3*x*y,
2*y^2] as y * (3*x*y) - x * (2*y^2) = x*y^2, so it has to be reduced to
zero. Am I right?
Please tell me which command should I use to avoid bugs.
Is it the parameter
Hi Dusan,
On Jul 30, 12:58 pm, Dušan Orlović duleorlo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon, thanks for replying,
your example: y*I.0 -2*y^3*I.1 -x*I.2 is x*y^2 which lies in ideal [x*y^3,
2*x^2 + x*y, 3*x*y,
2*y^2] as y * (3*x*y) - x * (2*y^2) = x*y^2, so it has to be reduced to
zero. Am I
On Jul 30, 1:51 pm, Simon King simon.k...@nuigalway.ie wrote:
I just arrived in my office, I am now doing some tests, also involving
other computer algebra systems. I'll report back when I opened a trac
ticket for this.
The trac ticket is at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9645
I
PS:
On Jul 30, 2:58 pm, Simon King simon.k...@nuigalway.ie wrote:
I see three probably independent bugs, two of them in Singular. So, I
will also report upstream.
The Singular version in Sage is 3-1-0, but the most recent Singular
version is 3-1-1. I think there is some new singular-spkg lying
On Jul 30, 3:02 pm, Simon King simon.k...@nuigalway.ie wrote:
The Singular version in Sage is 3-1-0, but the most recent Singular
version is 3-1-1. I think there is some new singular-spkg lying
around, and so I'll soon be able to tell whether Singular 3-1-1 still
has these problems.
Singular
I just saw that Singular has a disclaimer:
ring R = integer, (x,y), dp;
// ** You are using coefficient rings which are not fields.
// ** Please note that only limited functionality is available
// ** for these coefficients.
// **
// ** The following commands are meant to work:
// ** - basic
18 matches
Mail list logo
