On Friday 27 June 2008 04:59:37 am Burcin Erocal wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:40:34 -0700 (PDT) > > Bjarke Hammersholt Roune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is definitely a bug since the docs explicitly say: > > > "PolynomialRing(base_ring, name, sparse=False) returns a univariate > > > polynomial ring; all other input formats return a multivariate > > > polynomial ring." and name is by definition a string. > > > > > > To get a multivariate polynomial ring in 1 variable give the > > > number of variables explicitly: > > > > > > sage: PolynomialRing(QQ, 1, names=['Y1']) > > > Multivariate Polynomial Ring in Y1 over Rational Field > > > > > > Please report this to trac (and fix it :-) ). > > > > > > William > > > > This has been ticket #3128 for a while. > > It is also #2000. > > I think it makes sense to construct multivariate polynomial rings when > the number of variables is specified. It should be enough to fix the > docstring to explain this behaviour.
Actually I think that #2000 is contradictory. It states that we should be using MPolynomialRing, but that now gives a deprecated warning. The other point in #2000 is excellent -- factoring should be smart enough to use the univariate code when appropriate. In general, the difference between multivariate and univariate should not matter in practice. Certainly, I think there might be exceptions to this, but not for factoring (or my original problem which triggered my involvment.) Indeed, I think that might be the most important bug in my case -- I'd like univariate polynomials to support __iter__ like multi-variates do. -- Joel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
