On 21/12/2017 13:15, John Cremona wrote:
On 21 December 2017 at 12:29, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:I definitely get your point but completely disagree with the compromise. I think that functions that behave differently depending on the arithmetic nature of the object should simply not exist. The worst being sage: 4.sqrt().parent() Integer Ring sage: 2.sqrt().parent() Symbolic Ring In other words my motto is: the parent of the ouptut should be determined by the parent of the input. If I am not mistaken, one can take a degree 2 extension in the example by considering the ring of Puiseux series in u = (2t)^(1/2). Not very convenient to work with because of denominators but well defined (2t + t^3)^(1/2) = u + 1/16*u^5 - 1/512*u^9 + ... Would it be acceptable?That is exactly the "compromise" which I was suggesting! I called it s instead of u. Sorry for not being clearer.
My fault, I misread your post. Sorry. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
