Hi John, On Friday 30 Aug 2013 08:32:39 john_perry_usm wrote: > Martin > > Maybe one of us misunderstands the other (& maybe this should become a new > thread? dunno). > > I am somewhat hesitant, though, to go too deep into signature based > > > algorithms > > and new improvements... > > It was not my intention to go deep into signature based algorithms; I was > trying to qualify the dynamic algorithm as not being signature based. As it > dates from 1993, it's much older than F5 & variants. There's no need to put > the newer stuff in there, but I was thinking the dynamic algorithm would be > useful in a text that introduces to Sage, as an illustration of how to make > two very different parts work together (MILP and Singular). If you think > otherwise, okay. > ah, gotcha! Sorry for the confusion, yep, this makes sense!
> Out of curiosity, though, what do you think is wrong with the mathematical
> aspect? Did you have specific applications to commutative algebra in mind?
> If so, someone like Simon might be a better contributor.
I defined an environment called citeproof, which prints
"""
Proof: See \cite{some reference}
“””
which is a good indication that I didn’t care about proofs too much, something
which should rub some people the wrong way. It’s strongly biased towards
intuitions about algorithms and applications in cryptography.
For example, I only talk about solving systems of equations. A proper text on
GBs should talk about commutative algebra problems more general I guess.
All in all, it’s not necessarily well rounded and might not be the text that
the Sage community expects when it hears "Sage Book on Gröbner Bases".
Cheers,
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6532AFB4
_otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF
_www: http://martinralbrecht.wordpress.com/
_jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
