2008/9/3 Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, John Cremona wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I ran into that too. I don't much like the fact that elements of
>> GF(p^n) have different types depending on whether n=1 or n>1, neither
>> type is a specialisation of the other.
>>
>> I sugges
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Yes, I ran into that too. I don't much like the fact that elements of
> GF(p^n) have different types depending on whether n=1 or n>1, neither
> type is a specialisation of the other.
>
> I suggest opening a ticket but making it wider, namely to unify t
Yes, I ran into that too. I don't much like the fact that elements of
GF(p^n) have different types depending on whether n=1 or n>1, neither
type is a specialisation of the other.
I suggest opening a ticket but making it wider, namely to unify the
user interfaces for the different finite field cl
On Sep 3, 10:35 am, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Nick,
> {{{
> sage: GF(241^2, 'a')(1).minpoly()
> x + 240
> sage: GF(241, 'a')(1).minpoly()
> ---
> AttributeError Traceback (most r
