-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 125
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Clarify how monomial orderings are supposed to be specified #3040
Comments
I don't think we can "get rid" of those orderings, but we can choose to make them disappear in the user interface. |
I second the suggestion of removing the orderings from |
It is also used for |
One option is to write a function that takes the monomial ordering of the polynomial ring, which are orderings from |
I don't like this idea (assuming I understand it correctly). The default value for the |
@joschmitt Very true! If |
It doesn't. The abstract algebra ordering should be hidden as far as we can. The ring has a default OSCAR ordering (in an attribute, but that could be moved to a field) which is the reasonable for the respective ring (in the non-graded case degree reverse lex). This is the ordering which is used for Gröbner bases. |
In my opinion, we should "hide" the
I see two options how we could resolve this; both are "breaking" and need to be done before 1.0:
Option 2 would require more maintenance effort as any signature that is changed in AbstractAlgebra needs to be adjusted correctly in OSCAR too (depending how we do it). Still, right now I would prefer 2. EDIT: The decision is to go with option 1 and possibly adjust the OSCAR documentation a bit. |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
There is a lot of potential for confusion in how one can specify monomial orderings in OSCAR (see e.g. a question by @gfourier in Slack some time ago and #3039).
There are only three different orderings available and this appears to be used for the functionality from
AbstractAlgebra.jl
, most prominentlydivrem
and printing.MonomialOrdering
which one specifies for e.g.leading_term
,groebner_basis
and so on.Describe the solution you'd like
There should be a consistent way of using monomial orderings in OSCAR.
Additional context
I think we should get rid of the orderings from
AbstractAlgebra.jl
. I lost track of what the state ofdivrem
vsnormal_form
is though.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: