On Oct 1, 2008, at 12:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Yep. And I'll remark again that
>>
>> sum(sqrt(p) for p in primes(1000))
>>
>> *better* work instantly no matter what we do, or I'm not
>> happy with the plan. And you can't do the above as
>> far as I can tell by constructing explic
Good points.
There are two kinds of use cases where I would want to calculate
things like
"sum(sqrt(p) for p in primes(1000))":
1. Just to have an idea what the result "value" is in RR, to some
accuracy.
2. Assume I have a complicated weird delicate expression of Gauss/
Kloosterman sums.
W
>
> Yep. And I'll remark again that
>
> sum(sqrt(p) for p in primes(1000))
>
> *better* work instantly no matter what we do, or I'm not
> happy with the plan. And you can't do the above as
> far as I can tell by constructing explicitly a number field
> of degree 2^168.
>
> William
Hmm thi
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2008, at 2:52 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
>> I think the only reason I has caused this discussion at all is that it
>> exists already in the Symbolic Ring. To a number theorist (which from
>> his emails Geor
On Sep 30, 2008, at 2:52 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> I think the only reason I has caused this discussion at all is that it
> exists already in the Symbolic Ring. To a number theorist (which from
> his emails Georg appears to be!) there is no reason to make sqrt(-1)
> more special than sqrt(2) or
Sure.
Ultimately, for all algebraic numbers the listed rings should have
special ways of dealing with.
(As a beginning: For those algebraic numbers contained in the maximal
abelian extension of QQ.)
And everything being autmoatically and intelligently.
:-)
But the example of Robert with sqrt(2)
I think the only reason I has caused this discussion at all is that it
exists already in the Symbolic Ring. To a number theorist (which from
his emails Georg appears to be!) there is no reason to make sqrt(-1)
more special than sqrt(2) or any other sqrt(integer). So I don't much
like the idea of
Hi Robert,
On 26 Sep., 10:35, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2008, at 12:48 AM, Georg S. Weber wrote:
>
> > Hi Robert,
>
> > thanks for your answer!
>
> > Just some thoughts of mine which might not be "thought to the end":
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. The constant I b
On Sep 26, 2008, at 12:48 AM, Georg S. Weber wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> thanks for your answer!
>
> Just some thoughts of mine which might not be "thought to the end":
Thanks for bringing this up. The constant I being in SR has annoyed
me too.
> 1.
> Having fixed "I" in Z / pZ, we have it in Qp,
Hi Robert,
thanks for your answer!
Just some thoughts of mine which might not be "thought to the end":
1.
Having fixed "I" in Z / pZ, we have it in Qp, via Teichm"uller lift
(and vice versa via natural reduction).
2.
There is (for p being congruent to 1 mod 4) exactly one root "I" of
the two r
On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Georg S. Weber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 24 Sep., 15:34, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/9/24 Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think that both pi and I are universal constants in sage.
>>
>>> sage: zeta_symmetric(pi)
>>> 0.583573760763662
>>> sag
Hi,
On 24 Sep., 15:34, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/24 Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > I think that both pi and I are universal constants in sage.
>
> > sage: zeta_symmetric(pi)
> > 0.583573760763662
> > sage: zeta_symmetric(1/2)
> > 0.497120778188314
> > sage: zeta_sy
2008/9/24 Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I think that both pi and I are universal constants in sage.
>
> sage: zeta_symmetric(pi)
> 0.583573760763662
> sage: zeta_symmetric(1/2)
> 0.497120778188314
> sage: zeta_symmetric(1/2+I)
> exception
> sage: zeta_symmetric(1/2+CC(I))
> 0.485757429670983
13 matches
Mail list logo
