-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Add support for field extensions #1
Comments
Yes, I think it makes sense. In particular I was wondering following points:
|
These are good questions. As a user of a finite field library, I'm probably mainly interested in things like order, characteristic and generator of the field rather than the concrete representation of the field itself. The representation could (and maybe should) be hidden from the user. |
For arithmetic on polynomials there is polynomial. Maybe we can use that (or steal code from there) I'm working on a draft for possible types. I'll post them here if I get anywhere. |
Thanks! |
Ok, so after some thought, I think the best way forward would be to have a simple Extension type class and type families that go with it extracting the parameters from the type. That way we dont need MultiParamTypeClasses and thus dont clutter the types. |
A lot of Haskell libraries exist for prime fields; there are no good and clean ones for field extensions - the missing construction to fully have a proper finite-field library.
It seems the
finite-field
library would be a good place to implement field extensions. Does this, in general, make sense for this library?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: