On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:44 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> But then for "convenience of users", division by a unit is carried
>> out
>> in the same ring:
>>
>>> Parent(1/(1+q));
>> Power series ring in q over Rational Field
>>
>> In writing code, it becomes necessary to test the invertibility of
On Jan 18, 2008 2:53 PM, David R. Kohel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> > > I don't like the coercion into Mat(QQ,2); I think this will give serious
> > > problems in any general system:
> > >
> > > sage: type(A.inverse())
> > >
> > > sage: type(A)
> > >
> >
> > Why exactly is that
On Jan 18, 2008, at 12:46 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> Oooh these are hard. We still haven't settled on consistent semantics
>> for the power operator. Given the types of A and B, I'm never sure
>> what to expect the type of A^B to be. For example:
>>
>> sage: type(Integer(2)^Rational(2))
>>
>>
On Jan 18, 2008 9:48 AM, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> Let A be a matrix not over ZZ or QQ:
> >
> > >> A.adjoint()
> > >> A.inverse()
> >
> > >> are not implemented.
> >
> > > I don't think they should be. There are already (at least) 3 ways
> > > to do this:
> >
> > Wait
> >> Let A be a matrix not over ZZ or QQ:
>
> >> A.adjoint()
> >> A.inverse()
>
> >> are not implemented.
>
> > I don't think they should be. There are already (at least) 3 ways
> > to do this:
>
> Wait a sec I agree with David K on the adjoint issue. The adjoint
> doesn't require the fr
On Jan 18, 2008 8:53 AM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:32 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> >> Let A be a matrix not over ZZ or QQ:
> >>
> >> A.adjoint()
> >> A.inverse()
> >>
> >> are not implemented.
> >
> > I don't think they should be. There are already
On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:32 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> Let A be a matrix not over ZZ or QQ:
>>
>> A.adjoint()
>> A.inverse()
>>
>> are not implemented.
>
> I don't think they should be. There are already (at least) 3 ways
> to do this:
Wait a sec I agree with David K on the adjoint i
