Re: polredabs() suggestion

Igor Schein on Tue, 6 May 2003 15:01:52 -0400

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: polredabs() suggestion

To: Developers Pari <pari-dev@list.cr.yp.to>
Subject: Re: polredabs() suggestion
From: Igor Schein <igor@txc.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 15:01:52 -0400
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0304301259380.18475-100000@geo>
References: <20030430084746.GL5534@seventeen> <Pine.GSO.4.33.0304301259380.18475-100000@geo>
Reply-to: igor@txc.com

Hi,

I am just curious, what is the mathematical reasoning behind the fact
that the fields with a huge number of subfields ( the ones that give
polredabs() hard time ), are either dihedral or compositums or
dihedral fields? 

Thanks

Igor

Follow-Ups:
- Re: polredabs() suggestion
  - From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

Prev by Date: Re: 64bit bug
Next by Date: Re: polredabs() suggestion
Previous by thread: Re: polredabs() suggestion
Next by thread: Re: polredabs() suggestion
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread