Hi,
regarding the problem of number fields defined by polynomial with
rational coefficients (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/252), I
implemented a simple patch that justs prints a warning at :
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14146
However, I don't understand why this pat
2013/2/19 Jeroen Demeyer :
> On 2013-02-19 20:54, David Roe wrote:
>> I'm fairly sure the problem is that the defining polynomial for the
>> relative extension is not monic. One solution would be to use an
>> equivalent monic polynomial and keep track of a simple transformation
>> allowing one to
On 2013-02-19 20:54, David Roe wrote:
> I'm fairly sure the problem is that the defining polynomial for the
> relative extension is not monic. One solution would be to use an
> equivalent monic polynomial and keep track of a simple transformation
> allowing one to translate between the internal re
I'm fairly sure the problem is that the defining polynomial for the
relative extension is not monic. One solution would be to use an
equivalent monic polynomial and keep track of a simple transformation
allowing one to translate between the internal representation of elements
on the one hand and p
Hi all,
Adrien Poteaux reported this bug
(http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14146) to me. When you create a
number field (possibly on top of another number field), what are the
restrictions on the defining polynomial ? Currently, strange PARI error occur,
that are quite cryptic. Appare
