On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 11:55:14 AM UTC-7, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
> I would say because there is no canonically defined embedding as one can > send i to -i as well. > > That's in principle true, but in sage names of generators carry essential information. For instance: sage: parent(QQ['x'].0+ZZ['x,y'].1) Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y over Rational Field so there's an argument to be made that the "natural" map in this case would be to map i to i. I think that choice could be justifiable in sage, but I also expect it will be too expensive to support properly in this case: One would also need to check that the minimal polynomials of the different "i"s are compatible. They are in this case, but that requires quite a bit of work to figure out. > On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 1:38:24 PM UTC+2, Daniel Krenn wrote: >> >> sage: CyclotomicField(3).extension(x^2+1, 'i')(QQ.extension(x^2+1, >> 'i').gen()) >> >> returns >> >> TypeError: Cannot coerce element into this number field >> >> Does anyone have some idea why this is not working? >> >> (This is https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/26443) >> >> Best, Daniel >> > -- 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.