Bill Allombert on Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:52:02 +0200 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [arndt@jjj.de: Re: bugfix for charpoly with finite fields] |
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 02:42:11AM +0200, Karim Belabas wrote: > -- It would be very, very nice if polynomials (and matrices) carried > with them their coefficient ring, without our trying to guess in each > single function where exactly we are working (often giving up). > Knowing precisely "what is 0" would be useful in many contexts: our > current approach is too conservative and misses simplifications, as > above. But I do not want to force users to specify base rings in advance > or use complicated install-ed functions from libpari; so I'm stuck there. > > Maybe adding a "domain" tag to each object whenever we can safely do so > would be doable. But can't be done without wrecking backward compatibility. > (Or introducing completely new types.) We do not have to break backward compatibility in any way. Consider a GP object as being a tuple (domain,data1,data2,...). For example 5 would be (Z,5) , 2 mod 7 would be (Fp,2,7), x+1 would be (ZX,x+1), their sum would be (FpX,x+3,7) etc... Then for all generic functions and all domains of its operand we would have a definition giving the domain of the result and how to compute it: For example the sum of x+1 and Mod(2,7) would be given by the rule: (ZX, P)+(Fp, n, p)->(FpX, FpX_Fp_add(FpX_red(P,p),n,p), p) We will have to make sure the rules follow what the current generic functions do. The only painful case is with vector affectation like v[i]=... which can change the domain of v and require a full reencoding instead of an update. Nothing really difficult, just really tedious. Bill.