Hi John, On Friday 30 Aug 2013 08:32:39 john_perry_usm wrote: > Martin > > Maybe one of us misunderstands the other (& maybe this should become a new > thread? dunno). > > I am somewhat hesitant, though, to go too deep into signature based > > > algorithms > > and new improvements... > > It was not my intention to go deep into signature based algorithms; I was > trying to qualify the dynamic algorithm as not being signature based. As it > dates from 1993, it's much older than F5 & variants. There's no need to put > the newer stuff in there, but I was thinking the dynamic algorithm would be > useful in a text that introduces to Sage, as an illustration of how to make > two very different parts work together (MILP and Singular). If you think > otherwise, okay. > ah, gotcha! Sorry for the confusion, yep, this makes sense!
> Out of curiosity, though, what do you think is wrong with the mathematical > aspect? Did you have specific applications to commutative algebra in mind? > If so, someone like Simon might be a better contributor. I defined an environment called citeproof, which prints """ Proof: See \cite{some reference} “”” which is a good indication that I didn’t care about proofs too much, something which should rub some people the wrong way. It’s strongly biased towards intuitions about algorithms and applications in cryptography. For example, I only talk about solving systems of equations. A proper text on GBs should talk about commutative algebra problems more general I guess. All in all, it’s not necessarily well rounded and might not be the text that the Sage community expects when it hears "Sage Book on Gröbner Bases". Cheers, Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6532AFB4 _otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF _www: http://martinralbrecht.wordpress.com/ _jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.