2010/4/27 Johan Grönqvist <johan.gronqv...@gmail.com>: > The definition of norm on vectors is consistent with definitions of norm > according to wikipedia [0] and the springer encyclopedia of mathematics [1], > and (I believe) any book I have ever used. Those did not even mention that > there is an alternative definition of norm used in number theory.
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_norm > The norm on complex numbers is not consistent with viewing the complex > numbers as a two-dimensional real vector space, according to the definitions > mentioned above. One caveat: "the" norm of a two-dimensional real vector space is not canonical. In contrast, the norm of a two-dimensional field extension is uniquely defined. In the case of Sage, the norm of complex numbers is defined as the norm for the field extension C over R. Gonzalo -- 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
