-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 123
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
extend iso_oscar_gap(FO::AnticNumberField) #2511
extend iso_oscar_gap(FO::AnticNumberField) #2511
Conversation
to `iso_oscar_gap(FO::NumField)`, where the field can be simple or non-simple, absolute or non-absolute
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2511 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 72.94% 73.00% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 406 406
Lines 53962 54168 +206
==========================================
+ Hits 39360 39544 +184
- Misses 14602 14624 +22
|
Can we handle M with QQ/K/L/M? |
Thanks, Thomas! |
@thofma Sorry, I do not understand the question.
|
This still does not cover arbitrary number fields. Is this on purpose or a limitation on the GAP side? |
@thofma GAP knows only simple extensions. Thus If I understand you right then you propose to offer a general On the other hand, such computations can be done also with elements from fields that are defined over |
Yes, I wondered why we don't implement the recursive case directly. It is the identical code. |
@thofma O.k., I will create a pull request for that. |
We could also "flatten" an arbitrary field |
Yes, this is what I had tried to sketch above: |
to
iso_oscar_gap(FO::NumField)
,where the field can be simple or non-simple, absolute or non-absolute
(suggested by @wdecker)