> I just created two tickets for this:
THanks !!! :-)
Nathann
--
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
I just created two tickets for this:
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17568 (Allow syntax FiniteField(p, n))
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17569 (Allow creating finite fields without
a variable name)
Peter
Op dinsdag 30 december 2014 11:12:32 UTC+1 schreef Peter Bruin:
>
> Hello,
>
> My argum
On 2014-12-30 11:12, Peter Bruin wrote:
GF(p, n) = GF(p^n) = GF(p).algebraic_closure().subfield(n)[0]
With this convention, an added benefit is that the distinguished
generator of GF(p, n) is called 'z' + str(n), which is less likely to be
confusing than just 'z'. For example:
sage: GF(3).alge
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 10:18:03 AM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> +1 for a default argument for finite fields, but definitely not 'x'. I
>
IMHO "x", "y", and "z" are out. Maybe "A".
If your computation does not depend on the choice of generator then it is
invariant under the Galois action,
Hello,
My argument against making the 'name' argument for FiniteField optional was
that it hides the fact that the generator of a finite field is not
canonical. On the other hand, once an algebraic closure of GF(p) has been
fixed, there is a unique subfield of p^n elements for every n. Hence
I would also be nice to be able to pass GF(3,3).
If I ever find some time to implement it, I'll do it, but anyone can feel
free to do it before I do.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receivin
Hello,
We had a related discussion with Peter Bruin for algebraic closure of
finite fields
sage: GF(3).algebraic_closure('a')
versus
sage: GF(3).algebraic_closure()
(the default argument is 'z'). See #14990 and particularly comments
16, 33, 34 and 36.
+1 for a default argument for finite fiel
Hello guys !
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 th
