On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 9:07:58 AM UTC-7, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> What my troubles are, is that by using abs my computation gets inexact,
> which I want to avoid at all cost.
> (So I think I just have to treat CyclotomicFields etc. special)
>
> Yes, that indicates you are probably more in
Thank you for your detailed explaination.
On 2018-10-25 11:09, John Cremona wrote:
> Personally I cannot think of a reason why one would want this abs() to
> be returned as an algebraic number, since the whole point of absolute
> values in algebraic number theory is that they like in some completi
In general number fields have many absolute values, one for each embedding
into CC or RR or p-adic Qp. So, for z.abs() to be well defined someone
must have decided on a default embedding, and in Sage this is only done (as
far as I know) for quadratic fiellds , real and complex, and for cyclotomic
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 4:08:05 PM UTC+2, Daniel Krenn wrote:
>
> What is the reason, why this returns an inexact result and not something
> in an exact ring like QQbar?
Well abs() is real and positive, so QQbar might not be the first choice.
Small orders are apparently special cased
