Re: polresultant disagrees with sage, maxima and magma

[Andreas Enge <andreas.enge@inria.fr>]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 03:19:52PM +0100, John Cremona wrote:
> I don't think this is a good enough answer (sorry, Bill!).    I know
> that there are reasons for pari's variable priorities, and I have
> personally been entertained by hem for many years,  but  if
> "polresultant(p1,p2,x1)" is to correspond to any mathematically
> correct resultant function then it has to be independent of that
> (invisible) priority.

Agreed with this (and with your correction of my previous post).
When the documentation says "with respect to the variable v", this can only
mean that the polynomial is considered as a polynomial in v, with coefficients
in the polynomial ring formed by adjoining to the base ring all other variables.

Andreas