On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Dec 22, 2008, at 6:20 AM, John Cremona wrote: > >> You can do K(r.lift()), but it would be nicer if this was handled by >> coercion magic. > > This isn't really a coercion issue per se, it's a question of adding > another case to the _element_constructor_ method of number fields. Do > we want coercion here, i.e. should someone be able to write r + K.gen > ()? If so, would it be the most natural to put the result into K or > the quotient ring?
I think it would be most *useful* to put the result in the number field K, since it has way more structure and functionality. Since the two objects are canonically isomorphic, I think we should make an arbitrary choice, and chose that answer that is most useful. Number fields also have (or will have) a fixed choice of embedding into CC, whereas polynomial quotient rings shouldn't. That's another way in which K would likely be more useful. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
