PS: On 22 Apr., 23:13, Simon King <simon.k...@nuigalway.ie> wrote: > > I like Umwandlung! It sounds rather natural to say "Es gibt eine > kanonische Umwandlung von ZZ nach GF(5)".
That said: How would one express the difference between "conversion" and "canonical coercion"? Example: sage: R1.<a,b> = ZZ[] sage: R2 = ZZ['d','e'] This is conversion from an element of R1 to R2: sage: R2(a) d But there is no canonical coercion between R1 and R2, and actually no parent structure R3 with both canonical coercions from R1 to R3 and R2 to R3. Consequently: sage: R1(1) == R2(1) False Do you think the distinction between "Umwandlung" (=conversion) and "kanonische Umwandlung" (=coercion) is strong enough? Best regards Simon -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
