Skip to content
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

(very) Minor improvements to the multivariate polynomials documentation #13716

Open
sagetrac-Bouillaguet mannequin opened this issue Nov 15, 2012 · 3 comments
Open

(very) Minor improvements to the multivariate polynomials documentation #13716

sagetrac-Bouillaguet mannequin opened this issue Nov 15, 2012 · 3 comments

Comments

@sagetrac-Bouillaguet
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-Bouillaguet mannequin commented Nov 15, 2012

Mostly typo fixing, adding references to trac tickets, adding quotes, fixing a few spelling mistakes, ...

Component: commutative algebra

Author: Charles Bouillaguet

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/13716

@sagetrac-Bouillaguet
Copy link
Mannequin Author

sagetrac-Bouillaguet mannequin commented Nov 15, 2012

comment:1

Attachment: 13716_improve_multipolynomial_doc.patch.gz

@ppurka
Copy link
Member

ppurka commented Nov 16, 2012

comment:2

Some comments:

  1. Line 1308 is missing a backtick on closing.
Returns the leading term of ``self`` i.e., ``self.lc()*self.lm()`. The
  1. Lines 1577 and 1578 should have the latex variables enclosed in single backticks not double (like `I = (f_1,...,f_r)`:
       given an ideal ``I = (f_1,...,f_r)`` and some ``g (== self)`` in ``I``, find 
        ``s_1,...,s_r`` such that ``g = s_1*f_1 + ... + s_r*f_r``. 
  1. Shouldn't line 1975 also have \ne in the latter expression?
        - `LT(g_i) \neq LT(g_j)` for all `i != j` 
  1. Should we refer to the derivative() function in line 342 instead as :meth:`sage.calculus.functional.derivative` ? This will create a hyperlink to the derivative documentation in the notebook help.
  2. I am not very happy to see lots of "self" throughout the docs, but converting all of them would be a lot of work. So, I guess we can just let it pass and hope it gets fixed little by little over time.
  3. Most importantly, this patch touches a huge number of lines in several files. I am ok with this change (in fact, ok with any change which improves docs), but ultimately its up to Jeroen whether this gets merged, since he doesn't usually like massive minor changes. :)

@jdemeyer jdemeyer modified the milestones: sage-5.11, sage-5.12 Aug 13, 2013
@sagetrac-vbraun-spam sagetrac-vbraun-spam mannequin modified the milestones: sage-6.1, sage-6.2 Jan 30, 2014
@sagetrac-vbraun-spam sagetrac-vbraun-spam mannequin modified the milestones: sage-6.2, sage-6.3 May 6, 2014
@sagetrac-vbraun-spam sagetrac-vbraun-spam mannequin modified the milestones: sage-6.3, sage-6.4 Aug 10, 2014
@DaveWitteMorris
Copy link
Member

comment:8

Removing the "beginner" tag from old tickets. Some could be returned to beginner-friendly status by adding a comment about what needs to be done. Some others might be easy for an experienced developer to finish.

@mkoeppe mkoeppe removed this from the sage-6.4 milestone Dec 29, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants