On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:40 PM, John Cremona wrote:
> I never use these canonical embeddings, and cannot think of a reason
> for defining one field twice in this way...
>
> Now this would be more useful:
>
> sage: K. = NumberField(x^2+3)
> sage: L. = NumberField(x^2+x+1)
> sage: K.has_coerce_map_
I never use these canonical embeddings, and cannot think of a reason
for defining one field twice in this way...
Now this would be more useful:
sage: K. = NumberField(x^2+3)
sage: L. = NumberField(x^2+x+1)
sage: K.has_coerce_map_from(L)
False
sage: L.has_coerce_map_from(K)
False
sage: K.is_isomor
Hi!
When defining a number field, it is optional to provide a canonical
embedding into the real lazy field.
If two number fields are defined by the same polynomial and the same
generator name, they are still considered different, if only one of
them defines a canonical embedding.
Example:
sage:
