+1 to writing a class for localizations of polynomial rings with respect to
orderings.
El jueves, 19 de febrero de 2015, 18:43:15 (UTC+1), Enrique Artal escribió:
>
> I did not know this ticket but it is a related problem. I guess, following
> also Simon, that the best choice is to create somet
Hi Nils,
On 2015-02-19, Nils Bruin wrote:
> Doesn't the second (local) ordering violate the "usual" part? You would
> have 1>x>x^2>... etc., which is not allowed according to, for instance, the
> definition in [Section 15.2 in Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra with a view
> towards Algebraic Geome
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 12:10:05 PM UTC-8, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi Nils,
>
> On 2015-02-19, Nils Bruin > wrote:
> > Don't all term orderings (in the usual sense) produce the same ordering
> on
> > a univariate polynomial ring?
>
> No. You can have x>1 or x<1 (i.e., a global or a loc
Hi Simon,
Le 19/02/2015 20:44, Simon King a écrit :
Hi Bruno,
On 2015-02-19, Bruno Grenet wrote:
It would definitely make sense to me to have a simpler way to obtain the
same result as above, for instance with the simpler invocation:
sage: R. = PolynomialRing(QQ, order='neglex')
To me it wo
Hi Nils,
On 2015-02-19, Nils Bruin wrote:
> Don't all term orderings (in the usual sense) produce the same ordering on
> a univariate polynomial ring?
No. You can have x>1 or x<1 (i.e., a global or a local ordering).
Cheers,
Simon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 10:29:08 AM UTC-8, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
>
> >If you want
> >to use different term orderings or a localisation, you should construct
> >a "multivariate polynomial ring with a single variable" (I know, this it
> >sounds silly and is not obvious).
>
> @Simon
> As
Hi Bruno,
On 2015-02-19, Bruno Grenet wrote:
> It would definitely make sense to me to have a simpler way to obtain the
> same result as above, for instance with the simpler invocation:
>
> sage: R. = PolynomialRing(QQ, order='neglex')
>
> To me it would make sense to return a libsingular multiv
Hi Simon,
PLEASE DON'T DO THIS, unless you know what you are doing! Reason: If you
use the various boilerplate polynomial ring constructors directly, you
might break the cache and create several distinct instances of "the
same" polynomial ring, which has a high probability of confusing the
coerc
Hi Jakob,
On 2015-02-19, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
> As state above, the ordering is _silently_ ignored. Thus it is a bug from
> my point of view.
Would it make sense to return a libsingular multivariate polynomial ring
whenever the number of variables is explicitly prescribed OR an ordering
is pres
Hi Bruno,
On 2015-02-19, Bruno Grenet wrote:
> My impression is that Enrique is right: in the constructor
> PolynomialRing, for univariate polynomial rings the argument `order`
> seem indeed to be ignored:
Yes, see my previous post.
> A possibility could be to define a *multivariate* polynomi
>If you want
>to use different term orderings or a localisation, you should construct
>a "multivariate polynomial ring with a single variable" (I know, this it
>sounds silly and is not obvious).
@Simon
As state above, the ordering is _silently_ ignored. Thus it is a bug from
my point of view.
Hi Enrique,
On 2015-02-19, Enrique Artal wrote:
>> >This is not really an issue, the problem is the fact that the=20
>> function=20
>> >accept the entry *order* but it ignores it silently.=20
>>
>> Ahm, why do you think it is ignored?=20
>>
> I have rechecked that =20
> *R.=3DPolynomialRi
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:53:18 AM UTC-8, Bruno Grenet wrote:
>
>
> And `PolynomialRing`s are *univariate* polynomial rings, without an order
> argument.
>
Indeed, because different term orders are generally uninteresting on
univariate polynomial rings, unless we're allowing term or
Dear all,
> 2. When doing some test for the above problem I realize that
*R.=PolynomialRing(QQ,order='neglex')
>*does not take into account the order (the above *f* is not a
unit).
Yes, it is, since the ring is in fact localised.
>This is not really an issue,
I did not know this ticket but it is a related problem. I guess, following
also Simon, that the best choice is to create something like
LocalPolynomialRing admitting local orderings since even if all the
algorithms can be performed inside the polynomials (as Singular does) the
actual rings are
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 8:46:19 AM UTC-8, Enrique Artal wrote:
>
> For the first one, it was already reported, with an open ticket, but I am
> worried about it since it produces wrong outputs. The problem appears
> working with polynomial rings with local orders, e.g.,
> *R.=Polynomial
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the feedback
El jueves, 19 de febrero de 2015, 18:23:27 (UTC+1), Simon King escribió:
>
> Hi Enrique,
>
> On 2015-02-19, Enrique Artal > wrote:
> >1. For the first one, it was already reported, with an open ticket,
> but
> >I am worried about it since it produces w
Hi Enrique,
On 2015-02-19, Enrique Artal wrote:
>1. For the first one, it was already reported, with an open ticket, but
>I am worried about it since it produces wrong outputs.
If there is an open ticket for it, then there is no need to report it
again. However, if it gives wrong result
18 matches
Mail list logo
