On 16 April 2018 at 00:06, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 3:53:08 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>>
>> It would be nice to have better simplification rules for QQ (and more
>>> generally fraction fields).
>>>
>>
>> I suppose it's only OK to have as an option, as in general c
in multivariate case things like GCD are certainly very expensive.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post
On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 3:53:08 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> It would be nice to have better simplification rules for QQ (and more
>> generally fraction fields).
>>
>
> I suppose it's only OK to have as an option, as in general computing such
> a canonical
> form would be slow, no?
On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 9:27:40 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> The representation is indeed not canonical but the object compare
> coherently
>
> sage: R.=QQ[]
> sage: (2*t+2)/(2*t)
> (2*t + 2)/(2*t)
> sage: (2*t+2)/(2*t) == (t+1)/t
> True
>
> The reason is that 2 is a unit in QQ. Yo
The representation is indeed not canonical but the object compare coherently
sage: R.=QQ[]
sage: (2*t+2)/(2*t)
(2*t + 2)/(2*t)
sage: (2*t+2)/(2*t) == (t+1)/t
True
The reason is that 2 is a unit in QQ. You can compare with
sage: R.=ZZ[]
sage: (2*t+2)/(2*t)
(t + 1)/t
It would be nice to have bet
