On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:53:18 AM UTC-8, Bruno Grenet wrote: > > > And `PolynomialRing`s are *univariate* polynomial rings, without an order > argument. >
Indeed, because different term orders are generally uninteresting on univariate polynomial rings, unless we're allowing term orders that aren't term orders in the usual sense (such as neglex): A possibility could be to define a *multivariate* polynomial ring in just > one variable (!) when an `order` is given. This is possible with the > current implementation I think, though the results do not seem to be > correct for the particular question of whether (1+t) is a unit: > > sage: from sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ring import > MPolynomialRing_polydict > Right idea, wrong type (highlighting even further why we shouldn't expose Singular's "local rings" via our normal polynomial ring interface): sage: R.<x>=sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_libsingular.MPolynomialRing_libsingular(QQ,1,order="neglex") sage: (1+x).is_unit() True -- 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.
