I think that $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ is now pretty universal, and the old
"Galois Field" GF seem a bit old-fashioned -- mathematical notation
prefers single letters, perhaps in fancy fonts, while computer
languages prefer longer names with fonts!
So I would be happy for the command \GF{p} to look like
$\mathbb{F}_{p}$ in latex/html, as it is also quite readable in plain
text.
John
2009/3/18 John H Palmieri <jhpalmier...@gmail.com>:
>
> On Mar 18, 11:47 am, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
>> John H Palmieri wrote:
>> > On Mar 18, 1:53 am, Martin Albrecht <m...@informatik.uni-bremen.de>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday 17 March 2009, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> > In response to William, I think \QQbar makes sense, but I'm not sure
>> > about CDF: Carl had good questions about it, and besides, it's not
>> > standard mathematical notation. I don't know which other ones from
>> > rings/all.py you had in mind.
>>
>> >> How about e.g. \GF{p,n} and \GF{p} I use those a lot.
>>
>> >> Martin
>>
>> > We could have \GF, and then you could do \GF(p) and \GF(p^n), but how
>> > should GF be typeset? If it's something like
>>
>> > \DeclareMathOperator{\GF}{GF}
>>
>> > then a macro makes sense. If it's essentially indistinguishable from
>> > 'GF' in math mode, then I say we don't include it. What did you have
>> > in mind?
>>
>> I believe I've seen it as $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ or $\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$ lots of
>> times.
>
> I was wondering about that option, too. That would be fine with me,
> although it would require people to type \GF{p} instead of \GF(p). It
> would like 'GF{p}' in interactive help, which is readable enough.
>
> John
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
