bug: missing minpoly for GF(p)

[Nick Alexander]

{{{
sage: GF(241^2, 'a')(1).minpoly()
x + 240
sage: GF(241, 'a')(1).minpoly()
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AttributeError Traceback (most recent call
last)
...
AttributeError: 'sage.rings.integer_mod.IntegerMod_int' object has no
attribute 'minpoly'
}}}

Nick

[mabshoff]

On Sep 3, 10:35 am, Nick Alexander <ncalexan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Nick,

> {{{

this is now #4048.

Cheers,

Michael

[John Cremona]

Yes, I ran into that too. I don't much like the fact that elements of
GF(p^n) have different types depending on whether n=1 or n>1, neither
type is a specialisation of the other.

I suggest opening a ticket but making it wider, namely to unify the
user interfaces for the different finite field classes.

John

2008/9/3 Nick Alexander <ncale...@gmail.com>:

[Robert Bradshaw]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, John Cremona wrote:

>
> Yes, I ran into that too. I don't much like the fact that elements of
> GF(p^n) have different types depending on whether n=1 or n>1, neither
> type is a specialisation of the other.
>
> I suggest opening a ticket but making it wider, namely to unify the
> user interfaces for the different finite field classes.

I agree. There is also http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1802 and
lots of talk at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2384

[John Cremona]

2008/9/3 Robert Bradshaw <robe...@math.washington.edu>:

>
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, John Cremona wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I ran into that too. I don't much like the fact that elements of
>> GF(p^n) have different types depending on whether n=1 or n>1, neither
>> type is a specialisation of the other.
>>
>> I suggest opening a ticket but making it wider, namely to unify the
>> user interfaces for the different finite field classes.
>
> I agree. There is also http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1802 and
> lots of talk at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/2384

And also #2750 ...