"William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 6/12/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think the default I should belong to the number field Q[I] (or >> perhaps even the ring of integers) to start with (together with a >> fixed embedding into C). It would be coerced into C, the symbolic >> ring, etc. as needed. > > With the current coercion and number field model, I very strongly > disagree -- the I should be symbolic. Anyway, > you didn't give any argument for why you think "I" should be a number field > element instead of a symbolic element. I would probably agree with you if > you > were to give a good argument for why you think that, and if number fields were > much more sophisticated, and if the coercion model were suitably enhanced.
Making I different from any other symbol is confusing to me, too. Are we going to declare zeta2, ..., zetan to be the other roots of unity? And have the all special cased too? The symbolic functionality is at least symmetric. Nick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
