Le jeudi 5 janvier 2017 17:30:16 UTC+1, John Cremona a écrit : > > > It may seem heavy-handed but the final outcome is likely to be better > this way. I did a complicated computation involving a whole lot of > different number fields, mostly cyclotomic fields, and I kept on > restarting with a larger and larger such field with the others defined > as subfields of it (I think I ended up using the 1092'th roots of > unity). This worked out much better in the end than trying to > construct towers from the bottom up. > > Your situation seems to be like this with function fields instead of > number fields. Instead of starting with Q and adjoining roots of > polynomials you are starting with Q(x) and extending that > algebraically. Unfortunately Sage's support in this situation is not > so good. >
Thanks for sharing this experience. As I said above, in the manifold set up, everything is ready (I think) to play with such constructions instead of the Symbolic Ring. Best wishes, Eric. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
