On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 9:59:50 PM UTC+2, David Roe wrote:
>
>
> In order to create finite fields with arbitrary variable names that fit
> into a lattice of fields, one possibility would be able to give an
> algebraic closure explicitly as an argument to GF. Is that what you're
> sugge
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 12:16:36 PM UTC-7, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Kwankyu's point is also a good one. It really is not acceptable (from
> a user's point of view) to ask if there any coercions, be told there
> are none, and then be prevented from defining one!
>
It's a necessity for s
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> First, thank you for technical explanations. They are compelling.
>
> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 9:59:50 PM UTC+2, David Roe wrote:
>>
>>
>> In order to create finite fields with arbitrary variable names that fit
>> into a
Hi David,
First, thank you for technical explanations. They are compelling.
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 9:59:50 PM UTC+2, David Roe wrote:
>
>
> In order to create finite fields with arbitrary variable names that fit
> into a lattice of fields, one possibility would be able to give an
> al
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:16 PM, John Cremona
wrote:
> Thanks Peter for the explanation. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that the
> normal user could have guess that one only gets the clever stuff
> (compatible embeddings into the algebraci closure. The docstring GF?
> does imply this but again does
Thanks Peter for the explanation. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that the
normal user could have guess that one only gets the clever stuff
(compatible embeddings into the algebraci closure. The docstring GF?
does imply this but again does not make a big thing of it.
I think a better design (just of
