On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Tom Bachmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well, I actually had in mind to base my implementation of the Groebner >> walk off these classes, this is why I was so eager about discussing >> the topic. >> > > I think this is the part which I really don't understand. Groebner basis > code works for very specific rings (namely polynomial rings in finitely many > commuting indeterminates, or certain special localisations thereof -- you > probably know this better than I do) and does something very special - in > your case taking a very specific list of elements of the ring, and turning > them into another very specific list of elements. I don't see how an > abstract ring framework will be of use here at all -- since the only ring > your code works with is PolynomialRing anyway. It is not clear to me either > how a class representing ideals is helpful for you -- as I see it, groebner > bases are an implementation detail of ideals, so an ideal class creates > groebner bases, but not the other way round.
Yes, right, I'm not going to use those classes in the implementation. However, I will have to make my implementation available to the user, and I choose to make it available via classes which represent the corresponding concepts. For example, instead of running compute_groebner_basis([generator1, generator2, generator3]), I suggest writing GroebnerBasis(Ideal([generator1, generator2, generator3)). Sergiu -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" 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/sympy?hl=en.
