On 19 January 2016 at 11:49, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > As far as I know we do not have any specifications for //. In euclidean ring > it would be natural for it to be the quotient. But in other situations? > > 1. Should we always have > > a == a//b + a%b > > 2. Should // always be internal? > > Vincent > > > On 19/01/16 08:28, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> Feature or bug?
I would say "feature" since these are field elements so division is always exact, unlike ZZ(7)//ZZ(2). >> >> sage: QQ(7) // QQ(2) >> 7/2 >> >> I would expect >> >> sage: QQ(7) // QQ(2) >> 3 This would only make sense if ZZ was the only ring of which QQ was the field of fractions. Similarly with rational function fields, in my opinion. But I think that sage: QQ(7) % QQ(2) 1 is definitely a bug, for the same reason! (Should be 0). John >> > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
