On Jan 20, 2008 10:54 PM, Jonathan Bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't like the behavior illustrated below. Briefly, my problem is that
> GF(p).gen() gives a generator for the additive group of GF(5), while
> GF(p^n).gen() gives a generator for for multiplicative group of GF(p^n)
> (n > 1).
>
> I would file this 'complaint' directly as a trac bug report, but the
> documentation is somewhat clear that this is what is _supposed_ to
> happen - i.e., it says
>
> sage: F.gen?
> Type: builtin_function_or_method
> Base Class: <type 'builtin_function_or_method'>
> String Form: <built-in method gen of
> sage.rings.finite_field_givaro.FiniteField_givaro object at 0x9c22324>
> Namespace: Interactive
> Docstring:
>
> Return a generator of self. All elements x of self are
> expressed as log_{self.gen()}(p) internally. If self is
> a prime field this method returns 1.
>
> [...]
>
> I also know that there is multiplicative_generator() method which always
> does the right thing, but I still don't like this inconsistency.
>
> Anyway, perhaps I'll turn my 'complaint' into a trac ticket, but I won't
> bother if others don't consider this to be a bug.
I'm not opposed to changing GF(p).gen() to return a multiplicative
generator. Martin Albrecht, what do you think?
-- William
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
