[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## [Axiom-developer] RE: Sets in MonoidRing

**From**: |
Page, Bill |

**Subject**: |
[Axiom-developer] RE: Sets in MonoidRing |

**Date**: |
Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:57:28 -0400 |

Tim,
>* *
>* Another data point: *
>* given:*
>* *
>* > pgr := MonoidRing(Polynomial PrimeField 5, Permutation Integer)*
>* > p:pgr := 1*
>* *
>* one? p ==> false*
>* *
>* but the answer should be:*
>* *
>* one? p ==> false*
>* *
I think you meant?
one? p ==> true
But note that
a:pgr := 2
b:pgr := 2
(a=b)::Boolean
also gives false!
I have seen numerous places in the algebra where
one? was commented out and replaced with or defined
as
x->(x=1)::Boolean
or equivalent.
>* *
>* The root of the problem, as I now understand it, is that*
>* CCL had a builtin, non-Common lisp function called ONEP.*
>* Clearly this has affected the code. The lsp/ccl source*
>* tree has the CCL version of the code and I'll have to*
>* understand what the function ONEP is designed to do and*
>* add it to the set of common lisp functions.*
>* *
But doesn't the example above suggest something wrong
with testing for equality?
Is there/was there also a builtin function for zero? Is
equality converted to
zero? (lhs-rhs)
But presumably equality is/should be a more primative
notion in general.
Cheers,
Bill Page.

[Prev in Thread] |
**Current Thread** |
[Next in Thread] |

**[Axiom-developer] RE: Sets in MonoidRing**,
*Page, Bill* **<=**