Finite field/Talk

I would like to suggest using the GF(q) notation in the article, as it's easy to write GF(pⁿ), but the equivalent with F_q notation cannot be written very satisfactarily in HTML (witness the penultimate paragraph of the article). Would anyone object strongly if I changed the article to use GF(q) notation throughout? --Zundark, 2001 Dec 10

Having written that, I see that F_p^m does display correctly in Netscape. But in IE4 it looks the same as F_pm, which is not good. --Zundark, 2001 Dec 10

In IE 5.5, it displays ok but looks somewhat crappy. It seems to be safer to use the GF notation. --AxelBoldt