On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:19:16 -0500, David Joyner <wdjoy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What Dima means is that the ordering returned by the character > must of course agree with the internal ordering of the conjugacy classes. > I assume (without having looked at your patch) that you are not > changing the functions at all but only the doctests of the functions? > Otherwise, you will somehow have to check that your character value > ordering is "in sync" with the conjugacy class ordering. >
Ah, excellent. All I do is sort *the list of characters*, not the list of values appearing in each character. (If you think of the character table as having the characters listed as rows and conjugacy classes listed as columns, I'm permuting the rows but leaving the columns intact.) Does this make sense? (I've been staring at a laptop screen for a bit too long today...) I don't have the time to look into this at this very moment, so the rest of this is speculation: we might want to give the same treatment to the function that returns the list of conjugacy classes, to avoid similar problems. That would mean that we're permuting the columns. Still, we're doing the same operations across, so the table won't get "out of sync", it will just be ordered differently. Best, Alex -- Alex Ghitza -- Lecturer in Mathematics -- The University of Melbourne -- Australia -- http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au/~aghitza/ -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
