Hi, while working on the apparently trivial #13670, Marco Streng made me notice the following inconsistency in the present code base:
sage: R.<x,y> = QQ[] sage: S = R.quotient_ring(R.ideal(x^2, y)) sage: 0/S(x) 0 sage: P.<x> = QQ[] sage: S = P.quotient_ring(x^2) sage: 0/S(x) ZeroDivisionError: element xbar of quotient polynomial ring not invertible I am inclined to believe that the second behavior is correct, if only because it could potentially catch bugs. In the same vein, we presently have : sage: S(2*x)/S(x) 2 However, the quotient is not uniquely defined, because sage: S(x)*S(2+x) == S(2*x) True sage: S(x)*S(2) == S(2*x) True So why return S(2) instead of S(2+x) ? Should we refuse to perform the (not-well defined) division in this case? Cheers, --- Charles Bouillaguet http://www.lifl.fr/~bouillaguet/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
