Rather than "lying" or expecting the system prove that "x^2+1 is irreducible in R" I think the usual approach in Axiom would be to introduce a declaration in the algebra library to this effect, i.e. introduce a new category such as "Irreducible(x^2+1,R)".
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Ralf Hemmecke <r...@hemmecke.de> wrote: >> I think that to understand Waldek's point it is import to look at >> ComplexCategory. > >> if R has Field then -- this is a lie; we must know that >> Field -- x^2+1 is irreducible in R > > Exactly. > > If we want to do mathematics, why do you distribute lies? Unfortunately, we > probably cannot easily change it, but I am much in favour of a consistent > algebra library. > > Ralf > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. > To post to this group, send email to fricas-de...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To post to this group, send email to fricas-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en.
