Nicolas,
>> 1. I want to have a version of bruhat_lower_covers
>> and bruhat_upper_covers which returns pairs
>> (weyl_group_element, coroot) where the coroot
>> tells you which reflection you used.
>
> Ok; then the output would probably be a dictionary
>
> {root: group_element}
Why is this preferable over 2-tuples?
> What about using a reflection, rather than the corresponding root?
> That would not depend on the existence of a representation of the
> group acting on the roots, and could be put in CoxeterGroups.
That's no problem, and equally easy.
But do people in coxeter groups need these reflections?
My intended application does not need the actual
reflections, just the coroots.
I could put in a function that gets (co)roots from reflections.
Preferences, anyone? I could do the
almost-duplicate-code thing, once for reflections
and once for (co)roots. The version with just Bruhat (co)covers
needs to be left alone for efficiency reasons (for people who
don't care about reflections and coroots).
--Mark
> Yes, it all depends if the methods depend on the specific
> representation of W as group of matrices acting on some root lattice
> realization or not.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
