On 2014-12-30, Nathann Cohen <nathann.co...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wondered about this syntax. You can build a finite field from a > prime number with GF(p), but if what you have is a prime power you > should write GF(q,'x') instead. > > I very often need to create a lot of finite fields, but I could not > care less about this 'x' and so I type this even though I do not need > it. Would it make sense to you if we made this argument optional ? It > would be 'x' by default, or anything else that you would prefer.
I don't see how this would play out nicely if you, say, define GF(27) and then define GF(9). Would the latter definition invalidate the former? In GAP this is solved by having a special indexed variable Z(p^k), for p a prime and k a natural number. Then after defining GF(27) and then defining GF(9) you can still refer to the elements of the former as a*Z(27)^i, for a and i integers. If something similar can be done in Sage, OK. Otherwise, -1. Dima -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
