On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Carl Witty <carl.wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Maurizio <maurizio.gran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could you be clearer? As I told, I'm not familiar with rings. I don't
>> even know the meaning of the argument of GF (I took the number 5 from
>> an example I see in sage-support group, I think). Do you think that QQ
>> [] could fit in this case? Moreover, what's the difference between QQ
>> and QQbar?
>
> GF(5) means the Galois field of characteristic 5, a.k.a. the integers
> modulo 5.  (So in GF(5), you have 2*3 = 1, 3+4 = 2, etc.)  It's
> probably quite irrelevant for computing integrals.
>
> QQ is the rational numbers (fractions).  QQbar is the algebraic
> closure of QQ; this means it includes every complex number which is
> the root of a polynomial with rational coefficients.  So it includes
> things like sqrt(2) (which is a root of x^2-2), and sqrt(-1) (a root
> of x^2+1), as well as more exotic numbers like the roots of x^5-x-1,
> which can't be expressed using radicals (roots).  (QQbar does not
> include all complex numbers, though; for instance, it does not include
> pi or e, which are transcendental rather than algebraic.)
>
>> Now let's go to Carl's help...
>>
>>> Taking a quick look at that page, it looks like they want the exact
>>> roots in CC of a polynomial with algebraic coefficients.  In Sage, we
>>> can get this with QQbar:
>>>
>>> sage: K.<x> = QQbar[]
>>> sage: (x^5-x-1).roots(ring=QQbar)
>>>
>>
>> First problem with QQbar: it seems that resultant() doesn't like it,
>> because it is not able to convert it to a Singular ring (this is the
>> error, I'm not attaching all the output, tell me if you need it)
>>
>> TypeError: no conversion of this ring to a Singular ring defined
>
> Looks like this hasn't been implemented yet.

I think Singular doesn't have QQbar as a base ring, so I don't think
this is likely to be implemented for a while.

>
>> On the contrary, QQ[] seems to work fine with resultant (but it
>> doesn't have roots() )
>
> Univariate polynomials over QQ definitely have roots(); were you using
> a multivariate polynomial ring?
>
>> Moreover, it seems that QQbar roots() is not working for multivariate
>> polynomials ring... is it true or am I just missing something else? In
>> that case, is possible to let it work in multivariate polynomials? As
>> you can imagine, I would like to think about this as a method of
>> solving integrals, so it is very likely to have a symbolic expression
>> with more than just a single symbolic variable.
>>
>> Apart from this, is there another way to solve an equation (with more
>> than a single symbolic variable) obtaining exact roots? It seems that
>> maxima would do the work (with algebraic numbers...), is it possible
>> that it is the only symbolic equation solver within SAGE? What about
>> SymPy or anything else?
>
> What does this even mean?  .roots() gives a list of all the solutions
> of a univariate polynomial equation.  But a multivariate polynomial
> equation will usually have an infinite number of solutions; for
> instance, x^2+y^2-1=0 has an infinite number of solutions over the
> rationals (or the reals, or the algebraic reals, etc.)
>
> If you have a system of multivariate polynomial equations, then the
> system might have only finitely many solutions.

The "variety" command is relevant here.



>
>> Finally, I still would like to know which is the best way to translate
>> the output of a calculation with polynomial rings into a symbolic
>> expression, that can be carried on with maxima or pynac. Can you help
>> me?
>
> If p is a polynomial, then SR(p) is a symbolic expression.
>
> Carl
>
> >
>



-- 
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to