1018
Comment:

← Revision 8 as of 20081114 13:42:08 ⇥
1022
converted to 1.6 markup

Deletions are marked like this.  Additions are marked like this. 
Line 3:  Line 3: 
Number Fields: Sage Enhancement Proposal (pdf): [attachment:NF_SEP.pdf]  Number Fields: Sage Enhancement Proposal (pdf): [[attachment:NF_SEP.pdf]] 
Line 5:  Line 5: 
Number Fields: Sage Enhancement Proposal (tex): [attachment:NF_SEP.tex]  Number Fields: Sage Enhancement Proposal (tex): [[attachment:NF_SEP.tex]] 
I've attached a .tex file and .pdf for a Sage Enhancement Proposal for improving number fields.
Number Fields: Sage Enhancement Proposal (pdf): NF_SEP.pdf
Number Fields: Sage Enhancement Proposal (tex): NF_SEP.tex
David Roe
======
Concerning orders and their fraction fields: It is very much worth it to have a possibility of representing orders in a way that is divorced from a power basis. For large degree extensions it frequently happens that working with respect to a power basis is completely impossible for any serious computation. Yet, with respect to an LLL reduced basis of the ring of integers, computations might still be quite doable.
This is where having a number field as the field of fractions of an order comes in handy too: Going back to a power basis of a generating element can be really bad.
I'm afraid that, in order to have the representation truly divorced from a power basis, you will need a full multiplication table.
Nils Bruin