Bjake Hammersholt Roune wrote: >> [...] people are confused that when >> they create a matrix with matrix(3, range(9)), for example, that the >> echelon_form is not the rref output that they get from most any other >> program they have ever used [...] >> What do people think about making the default ring for matrices QQ? >> > I have no objections to making QQ the defailt ring for matrices. > However, I don't think this resolves the problem entirely. > > A part of the confusion stems from echelon_form doing entirely > different things based on the type of argument it gets. I would prefer > echelon_form to always use fractions, and have some other function > avoid the fractions. Another solution I could get behind is for > echelon_form to have a parameter for whether to use fractions, and > have the default be to use them.
I think the fundamental problem among the people I have talked with was that they never thought of a "matrix over ZZ". Instead they always really thought of a "matrix over RR" with entries in ZZ. So I think the proposal addresses the problem well. Those people that don't want to worry about matrices over non-fields don't have to deal with them, while those people that do work with matrices over non-fields can get them easily. Thanks, Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
