Tommy Hofmann
Tommy Hofmann
Why is it suddenly tricky? The ambiguity was introduced a long time ago, since abelian groups have always been iteratable and we added `G[i]` for those at the same time.
I can live with the proposal to remove `G[i]` as an alias for `gen(G, i)`.
> Speaking of misusage of indexing. About `R["🐰"]` as alias for `PolynomialRing(R, "🐰")`, I can say the same. It is cool, but rather inconsistent with how we create all kinds...
As we have all experienced, the conversion between Singular rings and the Oscar side can be a bit error prone. Note that the same problem was exhibited by the GAP...
We probably will remove `singular_*_ring` altogether and just provide `iso_oscar_singular_coefficient_ring/iso_oscar_singular_polynomial_ring`.
What I imagine being challenging with this design will be subgroups and quotient groups. What is a subgroup? What will be its type? It cannot be of type `AutomorphismGroup`. So...
I think similar problems appear for quotient groups, e.g., outer automorphism groups. I don't see how they can be groups of automorphisms of the original group or what they are...
1. We could try to make `S(x)` work. 2. There is no canonical grading/filtering on the denested ring. It gets quite annoying if there are rings with different groups underlying...
I thought about that (forcing the user to supply `radius` for f.p. groups). This would make `rand_pseudo` a bit less useful for generic functions dealing with arbitrary groups. I specifically...
Agreed, this is a good idea. I actually needed a few times, but never found the time to implement it.