Hi! It's true, that redSB might have some influence on the code run inside Singular. In my slimgb test files, usually I do the following: - normalize the leading coefficient to 1 - consider only the leading terms - sort the list If the algorithm gives back not necessarily a reduced GB, but a minimal GB, we have a canonical output. Michael
On 23 Feb., 17:14, Simon King <k...@mathematik.uni-jena.de> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
