Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

2017-03-21 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 11:50:53 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote: > > On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:03:05 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> surely you can do this, but it seems to be harder to certify if a number >> is zero or not. >> > > Exactly. That's the idea of Allan's approach:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

2017-03-20 Thread Nils Bruin
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:03:05 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > surely you can do this, but it seems to be harder to certify if a number > is zero or not. > Exactly. That's the idea of Allan's approach: rather than tracking these questions in characteristic 0, you do it in a finite

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

2017-03-20 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 9:06:26 PM UTC, William wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote: > >> The original poster is asking only about basic arithmetic and equality > >> testing in AA. Since AA embeds as a subfield of QQbar, a solution to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

2017-03-20 Thread William Stein
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> The original poster is asking only about basic arithmetic and equality >> testing in AA. Since AA embeds as a subfield of QQbar, a solution to >> these problems in QQbar automatically implies one in AA. >> > Does taking

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

2017-03-20 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 8:04:04 PM UTC, William wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:06:28 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote: > >> > >> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

2017-03-20 Thread William Stein
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:06:28 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote: >> >> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> >>> I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

2017-03-20 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 3:06:28 PM UTC, Nils Bruin wrote: > > On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600 >> >> The variable d lies in a number field of degree 32, which is rather big >> to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

2017-03-20 Thread Nils Bruin
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600 > > The variable d lies in a number field of degree 32, which is rather big > to call polredbest() on. > If the sage implementation ends up doing this

Re: [sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

2017-03-20 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
I believe that this is simply https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15600 The variable d lies in a number field of degree 32, which is rather big to call polredbest() on. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this

[sage-devel] Re: An "easy looking" computation in AA that sage can't do

2017-03-20 Thread Volker Braun
Backtrace leads into cypari2 polredbest, possibly a pari bug: sage: a=AA(sqrt(sqrt(5))) : r=AA(sqrt((AA(sqrt(13))-a)^2+3)) : c=a+r : : d= AA(sqrt(r^2-a^2)) : : 2*a*c == c^2 - d^2 : ^C---