|Bill Allombert on Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:17:03 +0200|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 05:17:12PM +0200, Karim Belabas wrote: > * Bill Allombert [2012-07-17 14:15]: > > ? Mod(1,2)^0 > > %1 = Mod(1,2) > > ? (Mod(1,2)*x)^0 > > %2 = Mod(1,2) > > ? (Mod(1,2)*x*y)^0 > > %3 = 1 > > > > Is it intended ? > > Yes :-( > > The code to determine "the" base ring for a given polynomial [ RgX_type() ] > was adapted from factor(), and only supports univariate polynomials. > > What ^0 does in principle is to return "1" in this base ring. When that > ring can't be determined, as here, we just return the integer 1 and hope > for the best. > > The main reason for this behaviour is to avoid checking that the > question even makes sense [ as in Pi*x + Mod(1,2), where it doesn't ]. > The code supports all kind of devious constructs involving t_QUAD, > t_COMPLEX with t_INTMOD coefficients, t_PADICs, etc. Right now, whenever > factor doesn't understand what's going on, it just aborts: > > (17:06) gp > factor(Mod(1,4)*x+Mod(1,2)) > *** at top-level: factor(Mod(1,4)*x+Mo > *** ^-------------------- > *** factor: sorry, factor for general polynomials is not yet implemented. > > > Trying to compute a "common domain" on the spot from an arbitrary collection > of unrelated coefficients is really the wrong approach if one wants sensible > answers in all cases, esp. cases never needed in the PARI library itself. What I want to fix is ? E=ellinit([a1,a2,a3,a4,a6]*Mod(1,2)); ? elldivpol(E,2) %4 = 4*x^3+Mod(1,2)*a1^2*x^2+Mod(1,2)*a3^2 (the 4*x^3 is really ugly), so I tried to use E.disc^0 but that did not work. Cheers, Bill.