On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 3:30:16 PM UTC-7, Kim Schoener wrote: > > 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). >
It means that you want to work modulo the ideal (m1^2-m1,m2^2-m2,m3^2-m3,m4^2-m4). You can use sage: P.<m1,m2,m3,m4>=BooleanPolynomialRing() sage: m1^2+m1 0 sage: q=matrix(2,2,[m1,m2,m3,m4]) sage: q^2 [ m1 + m2*m3 m1*m2 + m2*m4] [m1*m3 + m3*m4 m2*m3 + m4] > 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.
