On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 9:27:40 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote: > > The representation is indeed not canonical but the object compare > coherently > > sage: R.<t>=QQ[] > sage: (2*t+2)/(2*t) > (2*t + 2)/(2*t) > sage: (2*t+2)/(2*t) == (t+1)/t > True > > The reason is that 2 is a unit in QQ. You can compare with > > sage: R.<t>=ZZ[] > sage: (2*t+2)/(2*t) > (t + 1)/t > > It would be nice to have better simplification rules for QQ (and more > generally fraction fields). >
I suppose it's only OK to have as an option, as in general computing such a canonical form would be slow, no? Dima > > Vincent > > On 15/04/2018 21:37, dhr wrote: > > Hi > > > > Reduction of rational functions seems not to work in specific cases. > > In the following output, > > > > =================== > > sage: R.<t>=QQ[] > > sage: (2*t+2)/(2*t) > > (2*t + 2)/(2*t) > > sage: (2*t+2)/(2) > > t + 1 > > sage: (2*t^2+2*t)/(2*t) > > t + 1 > > > > =================== > > 2 is not reduced in the first calculation. > > > > SageMath version 8.1 > > > -- 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.
