Hi!
By lack of decision for the moment, I postponed the change to a later
ticket, I just uploaded on trac a minimal version of my patch which
just lets IntegerModRing use its categories, without upgrading its
category to Fields(): see
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8562
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 03:50:43PM +, John Cremona wrote:
> There are surely many other similar situations, for example when
> constructing a commutative ring it might be expensive to determine
> whether or not it is an Integral Domain.
Yup.
> I would always use GF(p) rather than IntegerMod(p
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 04:35:01PM +0100, Florent hivert wrote:
> Hi There,
>
> > In order to let Rob use IntegerModRing(n) as example of finite
> > additive group for his cool Cayley graph feature (#7555), I just wrote
> > a patch (#8562) letting IntegerModRing(n) use the category
> > frame
On 20-Mar-10, at 8:50 AM, John Cremona wrote:
I would say that you should never test for primality unless
specifically required, e.g. if the user asks is_field() (after which
the category could be upgraded? I don't know if that is possible).
I would always use GF(p) rather than IntegerMod(p)
I would say that you should never test for primality unless
specifically required, e.g. if the user asks is_field() (after which
the category could be upgraded? I don't know if that is possible).
I would always use GF(p) rather than IntegerMod(p) for when I know p
is prime. it is is vital in tea
Hi There,
> In order to let Rob use IntegerModRing(n) as example of finite
> additive group for his cool Cayley graph feature (#7555), I just wrote
> a patch (#8562) letting IntegerModRing(n) use the category
> framework. That was essentially a one liner, plus minor updates here
> and there,
Hi!
In order to let Rob use IntegerModRing(n) as example of finite
additive group for his cool Cayley graph feature (#7555), I just wrote
a patch (#8562) letting IntegerModRing(n) use the category
framework. That was essentially a one liner, plus minor updates here
and there, and all test
