On 13/08/2012 06:50, David Roe wrote:
Thanks for the pointer to that ticket, which explains the change in the the
"is_unit()" behavior.
Why should the inverse of "four" succeed when the result is not in K?
sage: four^-1 in K
False
The order K is analogous to the ring of integers inside QQ. So
> Thanks for the pointer to that ticket, which explains the change in the the
> "is_unit()" behavior.
>
> Why should the inverse of "four" succeed when the result is not in K?
>
> sage: four^-1 in K
> False
The order K is analogous to the ring of integers inside QQ. So even
though the inverse of
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 1:22:05 PM UTC-7, Marco Streng wrote:
>
> These outputs look fine to me. See also
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11673
>
Dear Marco,
Thanks for the pointer to that ticket, which explains the change in the the
"is_unit()" behavior.
Why should the inv
These outputs look fine to me. See also
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11673
2012/8/11 Rob Beezer :
> Is this a bug?
>
> First example is from Judson's abstract algebra text. Note that
> ".is_unit()" returned "True" in sage 4.8.
>
> sage: sage: K. = ZZ[sqrt(-3)]; K
> Order in Number Fi
Is this a bug?
First example is from Judson's abstract algebra text. Note that
".is_unit()" returned "True" in sage 4.8.
sage: sage: K. = ZZ[sqrt(-3)]; K
Order in Number Field in a with defining polynomial x^2 + 3
sage: four = K(4)
sage: four.is_unit()
False
sage: four^-1
1/4
Second example: a
