Hi Peter, hi Martin, somehow both approaches I think don't work for me. For example, the square (m1^2) is carried in both approaches, even though it can be simplified to m1 in GF(2). I would like sage to account for the GF(2) in order to simplify terms. For example I would expect that x * (x + 1) is simplified to 0 if x is a variable in GF(2).
Is there a way to do this or does sage lack that funcitonality? Thank you, Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
