Opened 9 years ago
Last modified 9 years ago
#14958 closed enhancement
Implement pseudo-Conway polynomials — at Version 8
| Reported by: | pbruin | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.13 |
| Component: | finite rings | Keywords: | Conway polynomial sd51 |
| Cc: | roed, jpflori, mraum, fstromberg, JCooley, davidloeffler, dfesti | Merged in: | |
| Authors: | David Roe, Jean-Pierre Flori | Reviewers: | |
| Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | terminology; possible bug |
| Branch: | Commit: | ||
| Dependencies: | #14833, #14957 | Stopgaps: |
Status badges
Description (last modified by )
This patch implements pseudo-Conway polynomials, which are used to enable coercion between finite fields. This has been split off from #8335, and is a dependency of that ticket.
Change History (9)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #14957 to #14833, #14957
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc roed jpflori mraum fstromberg JCooley davidloeffler dfesti added
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by
I rebased and updated the code written by David Roe and Jean-Pierre Flori.
One important question before me or someone else reviews this: why does this patch introduce objects that are called pseudo-Conway polynomial trees? This strongly suggests that the system of compatible finite fields that it represents forms a tree, which is definitely NOT the case. This is the whole reason why all of this work needs to be done to get such a system of finite fields!
comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by
The last patch still needed some cleaning up; here is a new one.
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
- Work issues set to terminology; possible bug
Reasons for status change to needs_info:
- the 'tree' terminology (see http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14958#comment:6); I think that
PseudoConwayPolyTreeshould be changed toPseudoConwayLatticeor something similar.
- during Sage Days 51, Jenny Cooley found a paper claiming that there is a mistake in one of the algorithms in the article of Heath and Loehr cited in the code. We should check that the error is not in this patch.
- R. Gurjar, Generating Conway polynomials, http://home.iitk.ac.in/~rgurjar/projects/conwayPolynomial.pdf
CC-ing the authors of #8335 and Sage Days 51 participants on this split-off ticket.