On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:30:58 -0800, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 January 2007 20:30, Nick Alexander wrote: >> It worries me that the outputs live in different rings for different >> classes, and the latter is not even a field :) > > Fixed in attachment. I couldn't find any bugtracker ticket for this bug, isn't > there any? I made it trac #214 yesterday, which I've now closed. > sage: x = ZZ['x'].0 > sage: K.<a> = GF(11**11, name='a', modulus=x^11 - x + 1) > sage: type(K) > <class 'sage.rings.finite_field.FiniteField_ext_pari'> > sage: K.modulus() > x^11 - x + 1 > > sage: K.<a> = GF(5**5, name='a', modulus=x^5 - x + 1) > sage: type(K) > <type 'sage.rings.finite_field_givaro.FiniteField_givaro'> > sage: K.modulus() > x^5 + 4*x + 1 Thanks. I also added an (optional) irreducibility test to the GF constructor (not just for the givaro case), which wasn't there until just now. I made it optional because for large degree irreducibility testing can take a long time, and one might know that the polynomial is irreducible already -- or maybe one wants to compute modulo a reducible polynomial -- damn the risks. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
