Hi Martin,
On Feb 23, 4:08 pm, Martin Albrecht <m...@informatik.uni-bremen.de>
wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make sense to use option(redSB) for the doc tests, since
> > otherwise the result is mathematically not well defined?
>
> I disagree. The result is well defined, its just not necessarily precise :)
>
> Also, we are testing the behaviour of the groebner() function in that doctest
> and thus IMHO it should reflect the natural behaviour of groebner().
Sure. And therefore I formulated "the result is *mathematically* not
well defined". Algorithmically it is.
> If that
> changed in 3.1 then I guess its fine we'll change the doctest once 3.1 is out
> and we switch.
>
> Thoughts?
Using option(redSB) would simplify maintenance of doc-tests easier.
But this was the only reason for my suggestion.
It definitely makes sense to test the groebner() function rather than
Buchberger's result on uniqueness of reduced Gröbner bases.
Cheers,
Simon
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
