Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In any case, I thought that Complex R is intended to be the ring of formal > > linear combinations of 1 and %i, where %i^2 = 1. (That's also roughly what > > the > > doc says.) Do you see a different interpretation for the 'Complex' > > constructor?
> I view Complex as a special purpose constructor: square root of -1 > has distinguished role for subsets of complex numbers. But I wouldn't consider Complex PF 3 as a subset of the complex numbers, since the arithmetic is different. > But in general one wants arbitrary algebraic extensions, and > SimpleAlgebraicExtension provide them (well, as long as R is commutative), > without special assumptions hardwired into Complex. Looking at SAE, I see that it exports Field if its underlying ring is a Field. I guess we have a problem there, too? > Note also that you need to be _very_ carefull when you work with rings having > zero divisors. I would like to trap zero divisors with the predicate if R has Field then ... Martin _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
