id,summary,reporter,owner,description,type,status,priority,milestone,component,resolution,keywords,cc,merged,author,reviewer,upstream,work_issues,branch,commit,dependencies,stopgaps
2165,MPolynomialRing(BooleanPolynomial) not as general as it should be,ncalexan,malb,"Coercion of BooleanPolynomials in subsets of variables should be allowed.
See #2055 with reference to the following IRC snippet:
{{{
ncalexan: malb: in 2055, is this right?
[3:26pm] ncalexan: if PY_TYPE_CHECK(element, BooleanPolynomial) and \
[3:26pm] ncalexan: 578 element.parent().ngens() == _ring.N and \
[3:26pm] ncalexan: 579 element.parent().variable_names() == self.variable_names():
[3:26pm] ncalexan: This is in a __call__, right?
[3:26pm] ncalexan: Shouldn't the variable names just be a subset?
[3:26pm] ncalexan: And then, even just the names in the polynomial?
[3:26pm] malb: it could be that general, yes
[3:26pm] ncalexan: eg, sage: QQ['x'](QQ['x', 'y'].0)
[3:26pm] ncalexan: x
[3:26pm] ncalexan: sage: QQ['y', 'x'](QQ['x', 'y'].0)
[3:26pm] ncalexan: x
[3:27pm] ncalexan: It's inconsistent if not. Other than that, I say apply.
[3:27pm] ncalexan: Hopefully it's easy to tell what vars actually appear in any partic. poly.
[3:27pm] malb: to be honest, I'd like to have it applied and open another ticket for that
[3:28pm] malb: because you definitely want to solve equations in MPolys with PolyBoRi
[3:28pm] malb: and your rings will be identical except for the implementation
[3:28pm] ncalexan: mabshoff: is that okay with you? Apply and another ticket for additional generality?
[3:28pm] mabshoff: Sure
}}}",enhancement,new,minor,sage-6.4,commutative algebra,,polybori boolean polynomial coercion call,,,,,,,,,,