I didn't think too hard about it, but I thought this was the easiest way
to specify the ring you're working in (assuming that it's a polynomial
ring...)
no time, sorry
Martin
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Richard Fateman wrote:
> As far as I know,
> it doesn't make sense to separate the formal variables
> from the parameters for a GCD computation. It makes
> sense to distinguish a main variable for division with
> remainder.
> RJF
>
>
> Martin RUBEY wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Richard Fateman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm afraid that there will always be a chance of
> >>commands not doing what people think they do. If
> >>you want to have an integerGCD, that might still
> >>do integerGCD(m,n)--> error, m and/or n is not
> >>an integer....
> >>
> >>and polynomialGCD(2^n,4^n) --> ... non-polynomial
> >>inputs.
> >
> >
> > polynomialGCD makes sense only when we know which letters correspond to
> > the formal variables.
> >
> > So I'd propose something like
> >
> > GCD(m,n); produces the "usual" GCD for integers m and n.
> >
> > polyGCD(m,n,vars); produces the GCD of polynomials in vars.
> >
> > Isn't this exactly the problem Axiom (and MuPad) (try to ??) solve?
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Maxima mailing list
> > Maxima@www.math.utexas.edu
> > http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>
>
>