[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

2009-05-06 Thread William Stein
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Nick Alexander wrote: > > > On 6-May-09, at 12:32 AM, Craig Citro wrote: > >> >>> Just out of curiosity, could you comment on my proposal that "order" >>> be removed, and replaced >>> by *only* additive_order and multiplicative_order?  I personally >>> never >>> us

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

2009-05-06 Thread Nick Alexander
On 6-May-09, at 12:32 AM, Craig Citro wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity, could you comment on my proposal that "order" >> be removed, and replaced >> by *only* additive_order and multiplicative_order? I personally >> never >> use order anymore, since I'm >> always scared it is the wrong order

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

2009-05-06 Thread John Cremona
+1 though perhaps it should just be deprecated, along with a message saying to use multiplicative or additive order specifically. John 2009/5/6 Kwankyu : > > Hi William, > > I agree with you. +1 on removing the confusing "order". > > Kwankyu > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

2009-05-06 Thread Kwankyu
Hi William, I agree with you. +1 on removing the confusing "order". Kwankyu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more optio

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

2009-05-06 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On May 6, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Craig Citro wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity, could you comment on my proposal that "order" >> be removed, and replaced >> by *only* additive_order and multiplicative_order? I personally >> never >> use order anymore, since I'm >> always scared it is the wrong ord

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

2009-05-06 Thread Craig Citro
> Just out of curiosity, could you comment on my proposal that "order" > be removed, and replaced > by *only* additive_order and multiplicative_order?  I personally never > use order anymore, since I'm > always scared it is the wrong order. > I'm definitely +1 on this -- I always resort to the me

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

2009-05-06 Thread William Stein
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Kwankyu wrote: > > Hi William, > > All right. I thought F* is the natural group structure on "F". But F* is not equal to F. :-) > I want > to mention that additive order function is not even defined for > elements of finite fields in Magma. Just out of curiosi

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

2009-05-06 Thread Kwankyu
Hi William, All right. I thought F* is the natural group structure on "F". I want to mention that additive order function is not even defined for elements of finite fields in Magma. Kwankyu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@goo

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

2009-05-05 Thread William Stein
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Kwankyu wrote: > > Hi, > > This is surprising to me. > > sage: F. = GF(2^3) > sage: a.order(),a.additive_order(),a.multiplicative_order() > (2, 2, 7) > > Who is interested in the additive order of a? I think that order() > should be aliased to multiplicative_order