On 01.03.19 03:59, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:> IMO we do not want there to
be too much of a distinction between
> multivariate polynomial rings in 1 variable and univariate
> polynomial rings. I would say the proper thing to do is to pass along
> the underlying implementation as part of the MPoly func
On 01.03.19 03:59, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:> IMO we do not want there to
be too much of a distinction between
> multivariate polynomial rings in 1 variable and univariate
> polynomial rings. I would say the proper thing to do is to pass along
> the underlying implementation as part of the MPoly func
IMO we do not want there to be too much of a distinction between
multivariate polynomial rings in 1 variable and univariate polynomial
rings. I would say the proper thing to do is to pass along the underlying
implementation as part of the MPoly functor (which is what you proposed
change is secr
On 28.02.19 09:15, Daniel Krenn wrote:
> Does someone have a glue why
>
> sage: T = PolynomialRing(QQ, 't', 1); t = T.gen()
> sage: t * vector([1,2])
The underlying problem is that the functor MPoly[t] applied to QQ (for
example) returns a true univariate polynomial ring instead of a
multivar
On 28.02.19 09:15, Daniel Krenn wrote:
> I tried to debug, but I am a bit lost on this particalar problem, so any
> kind of input is welcome.
Found something; I'll report back soon.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe f
Does someone have a glue why
sage: T = PolynomialRing(QQ, 't', 1); t = T.gen()
sage: t * vector([1,2])
results in an error
TypeError: unsupported operand parent(s) for *: 'Multivariate
Polynomial Ring in t over Rational Field' and 'Ambient free module of
rank 2 over the principal ideal
