On 17-Feb-10, at 8:27 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 07:50:57AM -0800, javier wrote:
Apparently I was assuming too much. The result of the evaluation of
the character belongs to some cyclotomic field, so apparently the
problem is that there is not a coercion between cyclotomic fields and
QQbar. I can circumvent the problem by using CC rather than QQbar,
but
I'd rather have exact coefficients.
What do you mean by exact? I am using CyclotomicFields on a regular
basis for similar things, and this works well. And I would expect it
to be faster than QQbar.
I agree. If you can avoid QQbar, do it! I love QQbar, I use it all
the time, but it's very easy to fall into a pit of pari polred and
never terminate :) I suggest you work over a fixed cyclotomic field,
if at all possible.
Nick
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
