On Nov 25, 9:55 pm, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wouldn't EE be a more consistent choice, in line with QQ, ZZ, etc?
That looks like an emulation of \mathbb{E}, which I have quite
frequently seen used for expectation of a random variable and for
nothing else.
If we put UCF in the global namespace, would UCF be an instance of the
UniversalCyclotomicField class? In that case, do we know what the cost
of that is? It means it needs to be constructed, it needs to be tied
into the coercion framework, it has its 0 and 1 cached ... Those
things bear a cost (one we probably see in startup time), so there
should be a good benefit.
The argument "but we also have QQ, CC, AA, Qbar etc." doesn't fly:
perhaps some of those would be better to not have initialized on
startup either. The pain of deprecation/incompatibility will probably
prevent that from ever being corrected however.
Finally: Is it possible to have several isomorphic copies of UCF in
memory? Number fields support this:
sage: K.<a>=NumberField(x^2+1);
sage: L.<b>=NumberField(x^2+1);
sage: K == L
False
This kind of thing could come in handy when you install custom
coercions, i.e., have a UCF as a subfield of CC and have another one
as a subfield of (Q_p)-bar or C_p [which we currently don't really
have], so please don't preclude the possibility beforehand.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
