On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:51:40PM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote:
> Wouldn't it make most sense to use the quadratic relation
>
> $(T_r-q)(T_r-v)=0$
>
> since the other ones can be obtained by appropriate specialization?
I definitely vote for this as well. That's what Alain always
recommended to me, and the practicality of the approach was confirmed
by our experience when implementing Non Symmetric Mac Donald
polynomials. See for example:
sage/combinat/root_system/hecke_algebra_representation.py
> > In thinking about this it seems to me that currently there is no
> > framework in sage for dealing with module that has more than one
> > "natural" basis. Is this right? Of course, it is possible to
> > define several different CombinatoriaFreeModules and coercions
> > between them.
>
> Examples of how to handle this might be in
>
> combinat/ncsf_qsym
Another approach is to have a single parent, with elements having
potentially several internal representations, and coercions being
handled internally as well. That's what Éric is using in
Sage-Manifolds:
http://sagemanifolds.obspm.fr/
> put all of this code in a new directory sage.algebras.iwahoriheckeagebras/
Sounds good to me.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
