On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-12 17:39, vdelecroix wrote:
> > To construct the element x^-1 one has to use 1 // x because //
> > stands for "internal division" in Sage
>
> What does "internal division" mean? I would define // as Euclidean
>
On 8/12/18 4:01 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2018-08-12 17:39, vdelecroix wrote:
To construct the element x^-1 one has to use 1 // x because //
stands for "internal division" in Sage
What does "internal division" mean?
Division of a by b means the element c so that a = b * c. Of
course, b sh
On 2018-08-12 17:39, vdelecroix wrote:
To construct the element x^-1 one has to use 1 // x because //
stands for "internal division" in Sage
What does "internal division" mean? I would define // as Euclidean
division (in some unspecified way since Euclidean division is not
unique). So I wonde
On 2018-08-12 17:39, vdelecroix wrote:
From the answers to that thread, it seems that rule
(R0) The parent of a / b should only depend on the parents
of a and b.
has to be strict (7 people for and 2 vaguely against). The two
main reasons are consistency accross the different Sage ri
>From the answers to that thread, it seems that rule
(R0) The parent of a / b should only depend on the parents
of a and b.
has to be strict (7 people for and 2 vaguely against). The two
main reasons are consistency accross the different Sage rings
and the fact that coercion relies on
On 2018-06-12 09:24, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
Note that the ring of integers does not follow this rule since a//b
also returns something in the field but we might want to change that
See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23971 for that
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 8:04:56 PM UTC+2, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> You are introducing some non-commutativity into the coercion graph that
> way, though.
>
I think that settles it: The parent of a / b must only depend on the
parents of a and b, since that is cached by the coercion system. Other
On 11/06/2018 20:04, Nils Bruin wrote:
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:30:42 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
The standard that I would propose is the following:
1. If R has been constructed as a localization (namely, if the
construction() method returns some kind of localization functor) then the
res
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:30:42 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote:
>
> The standard that I would propose is the following:
> 1. If R has been constructed as a localization (namely, if the
> construction() method returns some kind of localization functor) then the
> result of a/b will lie in R. If b
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 8:03 PM Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 12:12:46 AM UTC+10, vdelecroix wrote:
>>
>> On 09/06/2018 04:00, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>> > What Vincent has neglected to mention is the reasoning why I am
>> suggesting
>> > to keep the current behavior fo
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 12:12:46 AM UTC+10, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> On 09/06/2018 04:00, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> > What Vincent has neglected to mention is the reasoning why I am
> suggesting
> > to keep the current behavior for Laurent polynomials. A casual user will
> > almost certainly
On 09/06/2018 04:00, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
What Vincent has neglected to mention is the reasoning why I am suggesting
to keep the current behavior for Laurent polynomials. A casual user will
almost certainly do
1 / x^k
and then try to do a method on Laurent polynomials (say, iterate over such
What Vincent has neglected to mention is the reasoning why I am suggesting
to keep the current behavior for Laurent polynomials. A casual user will
almost certainly do
1 / x^k
and then try to do a method on Laurent polynomials (say, iterate over such
element). The rational functions code does
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 10:25:10 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> I vote for
>
> > 2) Laurent polynomials should conform to the rule (R0) and a / b
> > should always be a rational fraction
>
> by analogy with other parents, in particular polynomials.
>
Not to mention integers! While I
On 8 June 2018 at 10:25, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> I vote for
>
> 2) Laurent polynomials should conform to the rule (R0) and a / b
>> should always be a rational fraction
>>
>
> by analogy with other parents, in particular polynomials.
+1
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are sub
I vote for
2) Laurent polynomials should conform to the rule (R0) and a / b
should always be a rational fraction
by analogy with other parents, in particular polynomials.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this
16 matches
Mail list logo
