On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 7:59 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> I guess you would have to read the code and make sure that you think it is
> OK, possibly ask for clarifications or better examples, and then select
> "positive review" on the trac ticket.
>
Will do.
> On Thursday, 5 May 2022
I guess you would have to read the code and make sure that you think it is
OK, possibly ask for clarifications or better examples, and then select
"positive review" on the trac ticket.
On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 11:06:15 UTC+2 David Joyner wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:51 AM 'Martin R' via
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:51 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> David, could you do the review?
>
I don't know git but, for my own amusement, I copy+pasted all
the code in that module on your trac ticket into a sage file, then
attached it to a sage session and ran some examples.
I'd be happy
David, could you do the review?
On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 14:26:49 UTC+2 Martin R wrote:
> I am guessing that Travis' Representation class does the trick, but I
> have to figure out how to use it.
> On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 13:40:07 UTC+2 kcrisman wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at
I am guessing that Travis' Representation class does the trick, but I have
to figure out how to use it.
On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 13:40:07 UTC+2 kcrisman wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:48:07 AM UTC-4 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
>
>> Won't you be better off thinking of it as a
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 5:02 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33784 is now ready for review.
>
Thank you!
Here's another example, for those following this thread:
sage: A = lambda g, x: g(x)
sage: Gamma = graphs.ButterflyGraph()
sage: G =
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 7:48:07 AM UTC-4 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
> Won't you be better off thinking of it as a representation, then?
>
>
Correct, but I don't know how to construct those on arbitrary vector spaces
in Sage. That is to say, if I know the vector space, and I know the
action,
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33784 is now ready for review.
I am still open for discussion, of course. In particular, we might want to
discuss whether we should also provide a separate class which models a
group action, and not only the homomorphic image of the acting group.
Martin
On
You just need to git Trac try the branch, there are examples in the
docstring of PermutationGroup
On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 15:27:06 UTC+2 David Joyner wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 7:12 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
> wrote:
> >
> > I implemented (well, the implementation is trivial) the
On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 7:12 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> I implemented (well, the implementation is trivial) the following, and I'd
> like feedback. I am not completely sure whether the interface for the second
> variant, where the generators of the acting group are required, is
Won't you be better off thinking of it as a representation, then?
What would you like sage to do for you when working with a group action on
an infinite set?
Martin
On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 13:42:51 UTC+2 kcrisman wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 11:24:44 AM UTC-4 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
>
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 11:24:44 AM UTC-4 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
> I am actually not sure anymore, which methods or functionality this class
> should provide.
>
> Would it possibly be better to enhance PermutationGroup with an additional
> optional "from_action" and "from_cyclic_action"
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 11:24 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> I am actually not sure anymore, which methods or functionality this class
> should provide.
>
> Would it possibly be better to enhance PermutationGroup with an additional
> optional "from_action" and "from_cyclic_action"
I am actually not sure anymore, which methods or functionality this class
should provide.
Would it possibly be better to enhance PermutationGroup with an additional
optional "from_action" and "from_cyclic_action" argument? Eg.:
PermutationGroup(domain = X, cyclic_action = lambda x: f(x))
On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 7:32:01 PM UTC-4 Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> Sorry, I don't know an easy way. I've always just defined them by hand
>>> whenever needed.
>>> However, I agree with you that a better way is needed.
>>>
>>
>> I would love for there to be some standard way to define a
1) This is okay with me, but by "set" I assume you don't mean "Set":-)
For example,
sage: A = lambda g, x: g*x
sage: G = SL(2,5)
sage: X = GF(5)^2
sage: a = GroupAction(A, X, G)
sage: a.orbits()
should return something reasonable.
2) Your new class should be consistent with the built in action
of
Would you be happy with something like the following, as a unifying and
easily accessible framework? Of course, I am thinking of providing also
methods that convert it (back) into a representation, a combinatorial
species, a permutation group.
class FiniteGroupAction(SageObject):
def
>
> Sorry, I don't know an easy way. I've always just defined them by hand
>> whenever needed.
>> However, I agree with you that a better way is needed.
>>
>
> I would love for there to be some standard way to define a group action on
> a set - preferably maintaining other algebraic
On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:26:12 AM UTC-4 David Joyner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:35 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know about OrbitDomains, how does it work / how do you use it?
> >
>
> The documentation has an example:
>
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:35 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> I don't know about OrbitDomains, how does it work / how do you use it?
>
The documentation has an example:
https://www.gap-system.org/Manuals/doc/ref/chap41.html
> Is there a standard (and easy) way to define an action (in
I don't know about OrbitDomains, how does it work / how do you use it?
Is there a standard (and easy) way to define an action (in particular, a
cyclic action) on a set in sage?
On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 15:27:03 UTC+2 David Joyner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:09 AM 'Martin R' via
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:09 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
> I am very frequently using the function
>
> Signature: orbit_decomposition(L, cyc_act) -> 'list[list]'
> Docstring:
>Return the orbit decomposition of "L" by the action of "cyc_act".
>
>INPUT:
>
>* "L" -- list
>
I am very frequently using the function
Signature: orbit_decomposition(L, cyc_act) -> 'list[list]'
Docstring:
Return the orbit decomposition of "L" by the action of "cyc_act".
INPUT:
* "L" -- list
* "cyc_act" -- bijective function from "L" to "L"
OUTPUT:
* a list
23 matches
Mail list logo
