2015-02-05 21:38 UTC+01:00, John Cremona <john.crem...@gmail.com>: > If you ask for operator.mul instead of operator.div then you get the > poly ring. Is that it, perhaps?
Nope. I want to get rid of many hacks in rings/polynomial. In order to do that I need the div operation to be correctly handled by the coercion (or perhaps I missed something about the aim of coercion?). Namely, if p is an element of GF(5)['x,y'] then (p/Integer(2)) should be an element of GF(5)['x,y']. You can argue that this is what you get in Sage sage: R = GF(5)['x','y'] sage: (R.an_element() / 2).parent() Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y over Finite Field of size 5 But the reason why is a bit of a hack that actually introduce many bugs in other places: sage: R = GF(5)['x,y'] sage: (R.one() / R.one()).parent() Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y over Finite Field of size 5 the above should be an element of the fraction field! And you can build more involved examples. Vincent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
