Nils,
Thanks for your patience and sorry for my ignorance.
Guillermo
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 at 21:31, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 00:26:55 UTC+13 G. M.-S. wrote:
>
> If I understand you correctly, SageMath is a bit loose at the moment about
> its categories.
>
>
> That's not
On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 00:26:55 UTC+13 G. M.-S. wrote:
If I understand you correctly, SageMath is a bit loose at the moment about
its categories.
That's not what I meant also not what is indicated by what I noticed: by
the looks of it, sage does know about euclidean domains and has quit
Nils,
Thank you again for your explanations and insights, with which I agree.
As confirmed by the intersection methods you mention, I was thinking
about consistency.
I try to make my students grasp the concepts of integral domains, GCD
domains, UFDs, PIDs, Euclidean domains and fields.
One tool
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 10:22:15 UTC-7 G. M.-S. wrote:
Thanks, Nils.
My question was motivated by using SageMath in my teachings.
Do you think it would be difficult/worthwhile taking care of this?
I mean, ideals in euclidean rings (or at least in ZZ).
Mathematically or algorithmically
Thanks, Nils.
My question was motivated by using SageMath in my teachings.
Do you think it would be difficult/worthwhile taking care of this?
I mean, ideals in euclidean rings (or at least in ZZ).
Guillermo
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 at 18:44, Nils Bruin wrote:
> I'm sure its omission is just an ove
I'm sure its omission is just an oversight. For fractional ideals in number
fields it is defined:
sage: K.=QuadraticField(7)
sage: I=K.fractional_ideal(5)
sage: J=K.fractional_ideal(3)
sage: I.intersection(J)
Fractional ideal (15)
I doubt that just knowing a ring is a PID makes computing interse
