Simon, On Sep 23, 12:32 am, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > I said two things.
I understand you now. (I think. :-)) > One statement was: The matrix term ordering should not interfere with > the degrees of the generators. It must be possible to define > generators in degree 2,3,4 and order the monomials with a matrix order > given by a matrix that does not contain any of the number 2,3,4. Right. We agree here. > Sadly, Singular does not offer that flexibility (yet?). We agree here, too. Will you be at Sage Days, and are you planning to talk to the Singular team about this? > And since > multivariate polynomial rings in Sage largely depend on Singular, it > might be difficult to work around in Sage. This is why my original idea was merely to change the documentation by adding the one word & an example. After talking to you about it, though, I started to think of what Maarten has proposed. > However, the other statement was: *If* one has defined a polynomial > ring with generators x,y,z in degrees 2,3,4, then (x*y*z).degree() > should return 9; returning 3 would be a bug. (x*y*z).degrees() should > return (1,1,1). I think this would be a bit confusing for the user. I think Maarten has the right idea: we could use degree(), degrees(), and total_degree() to respect the grading, noting that this is determined by the first row of a matrix ordering, and use exponent(), exponents(), and exponent_degree() for the exponents. I've also seen "log" used in some papers as an analog for exponent(). I have create a ticket for this at trac #11847. -- 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
