#18036: I.parent() should not be the symbolic ring
---------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: number fields | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
---------------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by mmezzarobba):
Replying to [comment:16 vdelecroix]:
> Yes! Having a custom representation should be done in the main class. It
is already possible:
If all we want is a different string representation, yes, perhaps it makes
sense to use `rename()`...
> > A related question is whether `QQi is NumberField(x^2+1, 'I',
embedding=CC.0)` should be true, or if there should be two separate
parents.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> More generally, do we want unique representation for (absolute) number
fields?
I think everyone agrees that absolute number fields should have unique
representation. My question was whether Q[i] should ''be'' an absolute
number field in this sense, or if it should be a “special” object such
that people could work with both Q[i]-as-a-subset-of-complex-numbers and
Q[i]-as-a-number field, possibly at the same time. I'd prefer a single
object as well, but I am sure I have missed some of the implications, so
if anyone has arguments in favor of the other option, I would be
interested in hearing them.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18036#comment:17>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
