> Yeah. Precision there bears more thinking on. I was actually even
> considering
> having precisions and valuations normalized so that valuation(p) = 1,
> and then only
> integral precisions would be allowed. I'm not sure whether I like
> this idea though...
I'm sure I do not like that idea.
> My mistake, but the errors let me think it was sage's fault. I typed
> pAdicRing(3,prec="lazy")
> which gets accepted. Doing anything with the ring afterwards leads to
> the
> above error. You should probably validate all construction parameters
> at construction time.
Sounds like a good idea.
> > - Currently trying to create an element in a "lazy" ring leads to a
> > Exception (click to the left for traceback):
> > File "integer.pyx", line 669, in integer.Integer.__pow__
> > TypeError: exponent (=lazy) must be an integer
> > Coerce your numbers to real or complex numbers first.
> > (t
I tried sending a response a while ago, but it didn't seem to get
through.
I'm including a response to David Kohel's e-mail at the bottom of
this.
> Congratulations on the new p-adic model. This really looks very
> promising and extensible.
Thanks.
> - It should be possible to create elements
Hi,
Another feature that I find extremely useful are the quotient rings
(currently not implemented).
This allows one to work in a well-defined ring, and control precision
precisely.
--David
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@go
