>
>
> >>
> >> I think we should change is_prime for rational numbers, since people
> >> get confused by this so much.
> >>
> >> How? Pretty much any change at all would be better than the current
> >> situation. Options I can think of:
> >>
> >> - make is_prime([rational]) raise an error
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 01:03 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> I think we should change is_prime for rational numbers, since people
>> get confused by this so much.
>>
>> How? Pretty much any change at all would be better than the current
>> situatio
On 04/05/2016 01:03 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> I think we should change is_prime for rational numbers, since people
> get confused by this so much.
>
> How? Pretty much any change at all would be better than the current
> situation. Options I can think of:
>
> - make is_prime([rational]) rai
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I was just doing a routine check for a Chaum-van Antwerpen Signature
>> Scheme public parameter set(p=2q+1, p,q both odd primes) and in checking a
>> small prime, it told me that it was composite. I'm not sure if it's just my
>
Hi everyone,
>
> I was just doing a routine check for a Chaum-van Antwerpen Signature
> Scheme public parameter set(p=2q+1, p,q both odd primes) and in checking a
> small prime, it told me that it was composite. I'm not sure if it's just my
> build, but obviously I can't have this happening wit
the division changes the type to a rational number. I.e.
type(q)
and
is_prime(Integer(q))
True
fixes this. Not sure if that's a bug. It's certainly not obvious why this
happens.
-- harald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
T
