How unfortunate, but it at least it was not the fault of the catalecticants.
john PS congratulations on the birth of your son! On 11 September 2012 14:21, Dima Pasechnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2012 21:09:39 UTC+8, John Cremona wrote: >> >> Dima, you have just insulted my favourite word (catalecticant)! > > > oops, sorry, I didn't mean getting personal. Please give my regards to > catalecticants. :–) > > The 1st year of my 1st postdoc was wasted on implementing stuff from Grace > and Young, in C+gmp, (as my then boss wished) and I didn't enjoy it at all. > And the place I was at didn't do the proper work permit paperwork, and it > was Pasechnik vs. State of the Netherlands, with the latter willing to > deport me, for most of that bloody year... > > > >> They >> play an important role in 2-descent on elliptic curves! I will be >> happy when search_src("catalecticant") returns a result. >> >> But don't worry, I will not be campaigning to have Sylvester's >> preferred "catalecticizant" as an alias (see >> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13431). >> >> John >> >> On 11 September 2012 14:03, Dima Pasechnik <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tuesday, 11 September 2012 20:16:37 UTC+8, Volker Braun wrote: >> >> >> >> But I need the classical invariants / covariants with their >> >> conventional >> >> names and normalizations in the literature. >> > >> > >> > I don't think that 98% of Grace and Young >> > (http://archive.org/details/algebraofinvaria00graciala) belong to core >> > Sage. >> > I'd say it might be an optional package. >> > I don't mind discriminants and other bits of the classical invariant >> > theory >> > which went on to live their lives in the modern maths, but, say, >> > catalecticants, minimal systems of invariants for 5-ics, etc, please, >> > give >> > me a break... >> > >> >> >> >> I'm not trying to do the most general SL(n,C) representation theory >> >> here. >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:12:57 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Yes, it's great, but I would rather like to see it packaged as >> >>> invariants >> >>> of a representation of SL(2,C), not >> >>> as invariants of a binary form. >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > Groups >> > "sage-devel" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]. >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. >> > >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
