>> I'm worried that won't work, since CC is 53-bit precision floats, so
>> "by extension SR" means you'll end up with 1.0*I rather than I.
>
> I just meant in the sense that fixing an embedding into CC fixes the
> embedding into SR, QQbar, ComplexField(1000), etc. The embedding will
> actually be
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>
I'm worried that won't work, since CC is 53-bit precision floats, so
"by extension SR" means you'll end up with 1.0*I rather than I.
>>>
>>> I just meant
On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:05 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>> I'm worried that won't work, since CC is 53-bit precision floats, so
>>> "by extension SR" means you'll end up with 1.0*I rather than I.
>>
>> I just meant in the sense that fixing an embedding into CC fixes the
>> embedding into SR, QQbar,
On Oct 3, 2008, at 11:40 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:36 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:43 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 200
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:36 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:43 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:31 AM, jdmuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> I've actually been working on a patch for coercion that will allow
> number fields to come with specified embeddings, in which case we
> will let I be in QQ[sqrt(-1)] (or even perhaps ZZ[sqrt(-1)]), but
> with a specified embedding into CC (and by extension SR) so th
On Oct 2, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:43 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:31 AM, jdmuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am a total newcomer, and here is very simple high-school level
>>> questio
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:58 AM, jdmuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok thanks to you both. Your answers show both Sage's flexibility and
> its room for improvement. The QQ[sqrt(-1)] idea is especially
> baffling, and completely out of reach of the target audience (high
> school).
>
> As a newbie
Ok thanks to you both. Your answers show both Sage's flexibility and
its room for improvement. The QQ[sqrt(-1)] idea is especially
baffling, and completely out of reach of the target audience (high
school).
As a newbie with maybe half a day of Sage experience, none of the
answers was either easy
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:43 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:31 AM, jdmuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am a total newcomer, and here is very simple high-school level
>> question for which I could not find an answer in several hours of
>> se
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:31 AM, jdmuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am a total newcomer, and here is very simple high-school level
> question for which I could not find an answer in several hours of
> searching:
>
> How can I use Sage to simplify ratios involving complex numbers?
>
> B
11 matches
Mail list logo
