On 8-Dec-08, at 5:07 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> > Are there two different ordering issues here: (1) do zeroes go at the > beginning or at the end? (2) Does each nonzero entry divide the next, > or the previous? > > For (2) I think the usual is to have each divide the next (so for > example any 1's are at the front), though pari does the opposite; for > (1) I'm not sure that there is a universal convention, but logic would > suggest that we follow what is done for (2) which means 0's at the end > (provided we go for the non-pari convention for (2)). This is how I like -- as David points out, this corresponds to inclusion of ideals. +1. David, could I ask for some examples over some other rings or doctests explaining why that doesn't work? I think QQ[x] should work, and maybe ZZ / n ZZ (depending on how much care you take to make it work). I am not certain I like the changes to symplectic basis, but if I want to change it back I'll open a new ticket. I think the existing output form of symplectic_basis is standard in the abelian varieties literature I read but I'm open to discussion. Nick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
