On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:15 AM, didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Jason Grout > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> More concisely, this proposal could be worded: >> >> What do people think of making matrix() return a matrix over a field by >> default, unless a ring is explicitly specified. The default field would >> either be the fraction field of the ring containing the specified >> elements, or would be QQ if no elements are specified. This logic would >> *only* be applied if a ring is not specified. The documentation of >> matrix() would also be changed accordingly. > > Just to make sure I get it: > matrix(1,1,[1]) and
Yes. > matrix(1,2,[Mod(23,4),23]) will be over QQ Absolutely not! The behavior of matrix(1,2,[Mod(23,4),23]) will be exactly like it is now, since Integers(4).fraction_field() doesn't contain Integers(4). sage: matrix(1,2,[Mod(23,4),23]) [3 3] sage: parent(matrix(1,2,[Mod(23,4),23])) Full MatrixSpace of 1 by 2 dense matrices over Ring of integers modulo 4 > To me it looks like the *only* change from the current beahavior will > be that the matrices above will be over QQ, instead of over ZZ or a > generic ring. What other cases am I missing? I don't know. Why would you think that matrix(1,2,[Mod(23,4),23]) would suddenly be over QQ? That would be very weird. > > didier > > > > -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
