[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Should we be more careful with integral domains?

Hi Nicolas, On 2013-02-08, Nicolas M. Thiery nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr wrote: Hmm, fun indeed: sage: Qp(7).category() Category of commutative rings sage: Qp(7) in IntegralDomains() False sage: Qp(7) in Fields() True sage: Qp(7).category() Category of

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Should we be more careful with integral domains?

Hi! Am Freitag, 8. Februar 2013 21:54:33 UTC+1 schrieb Nicolas M. Thiery: I agree that Qp(p) should be declared from the beginning in the Fields category. And similarly ZZ[['x']] should be in IntegralDomains. This costs nothing. Here is the reason why it does not work yet. From the

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Should we be more careful with integral domains?

On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:10:03PM +, Simon King wrote: So, as a middle-ground, one could say that it is IntegralDomain() if bool(check) (because the primality test will happen anyway), and CommutativeRings() otherwise. Sounds good to me! Nevertheless, P[['x']] should be an integral