[sage-combinat-devel] Re: tensor products of free modules; combinatorial algebras
Nicolas, Does it make sense to have a particular abstract object in an abstract category in sage and be able to work with it and describe its properties, all on the abstract level? What I have in mind is the unit object in the tensor category of modules. I have this working concretely (tensors of maps that can use the tensor unit, with extraneous tensor unit autoremoval, for CombinatorialFreeModule_Tensor) but found myself wanting to write abstract methods. --Mark -- 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.
[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions
Hey everyone, I've been using #10963 in developing #14901 (Lie algebras). I first gave 'Lie' as an axiom of NonAssociativeNonUnitalAlgebras (which I just asked Nicolas for how to do it without really looking at the examples), but decided that I didn't want _mul_() to give the Lie bracket, so I just made the category LieAlgebras be a subcategory of Modules. Next I implemented two axiom subcategories of WithBasis and FiniteDimensional (on my own) and I felt that it was natural and straightforward. This was about half a year ago (before much of the documentation was written). Now I feel that Volker's suggestion of making axioms into objects is a somewhat heavy-handed approach to something which is basically to act as a property, close to decorator interfaces in Java but here axiom determine inheritance. So I'd think a list/tuple of strings specifying what axioms are implemented is a better way to do it if we don't want to use Nicolas' implementation (which I don't object to). On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they don't like the current implementation without providing a working alternative and can demonstrate why it's better. This is what follow-up tickets are for; because if it's such a big issue, then people *will* work on it. Our development model is somewhat fast, however I've been told that Facebook pushes changes to it's live server after possibly only a quick check (I've see FB change radically from one day to the next because of this). So I will officially vote and say let's merge this ticket in as we can always revisit this. Best, Travis -- 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.
[sage-combinat-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they don't like the current implementation without providing a working alternative and can demonstrate why it's better. Do you think that a patch should automatically be merged when it has been waiting for a reviewer for a long time ? From time to time, I think that what a ticket implement is not a good idea. I usually say so on the ticket and refuse to review it (i.e. #13624). I still think that implementing the reviewer's remarks is the author's job, though. Otherwise you will end up with careless reviews, because the reviewers have no time to improve somebody else's code. And I wouldn't want to see careless patches either, written assuming that the reviewer will fix the problems. Nathann -- 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.
[sage-combinat-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote: On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they don't like the current implementation without providing a working alternative and can demonstrate why it's better. Do you think that a patch should automatically be merged when it has been waiting for a reviewer for a long time ? With regards to #10963, the ticket had been reviewed and indeed had gotten a positive review, and then some other people looked at it and started asking questions. So Nicolas is not trying to bypass the review process, but rather trying to sort out a disagreement among the various participants on the ticket. That's probably too brief to adequately summarize what's going on, but anyway, I think your question is not really relevant to this particular ticket. -- John -- 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.
[sage-combinat-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions
Hey John no worries, I was only answering Travis' post and this (rethorical) question was just meant as a way to show that I did not concur with his view that reviewers should have to implement their remarks when the review gets long. Nathann On Tuesday, 11 March 2014, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote: On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they don't like the current implementation without providing a working alternative and can demonstrate why it's better. Do you think that a patch should automatically be merged when it has been waiting for a reviewer for a long time ? With regards to #10963, the ticket had been reviewed and indeed had gotten a positive review, and then some other people looked at it and started asking questions. So Nicolas is not trying to bypass the review process, but rather trying to sort out a disagreement among the various participants on the ticket. That's probably too brief to adequately summarize what's going on, but anyway, I think your question is not really relevant to this particular ticket. -- John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups sage-devel group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/hupt_5776j0/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sage-devel%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com'); . To post to this group, send email to sage-de...@googlegroups.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sage-de...@googlegroups.com'); . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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.
Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions
On 3/11/14 1:20 PM, John H Palmieri wrote: On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote: On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they don't like the current implementation without providing a working alternative and can demonstrate why it's better. Do you think that a patch should automatically be merged when it has been waiting for a reviewer for a long time ? With regards to #10963, the ticket had been reviewed and indeed had gotten a positive review, and then some other people looked at it and started asking questions. So Nicolas is not trying to bypass the review process, but rather trying to sort out a disagreement among the various participants on the ticket. That's probably too brief to adequately summarize what's going on, but anyway, I think your question is not really relevant to this particular ticket. I agree with John. I actually think Nicolas is quite patient trying to answer all questions. My suggestion would be either for Volker to implement his alternative on a different ticket, so we can see it in action and test it, or to let Nicolas' patch go in (provided of course that there are no real issues, but rather only technical disagreements about the implementation details). If we do not have Volker's alternative and we want this feature in sage, then I think the only way one could vote is for Nicolas' patch to get in! And I think we do want this feature in Sage! Best, Anne -- 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.
Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions
Helloo ! I agree with John. I actually think Nicolas is quite patient trying to answer all questions. You are so kind. My suggestion would be either for Volker to implement his alternative on a different ticket, so we can see it in action and test it, or to let Nicolas' patch go in (provided of course that there are no real issues, but rather only technical disagreements about the implementation details). If we do not have Volker's alternative and we want this feature in sage, then I think the only way one could vote is for Nicolas' patch to get in! And I think we do want this feature in Sage! If you want to get this ticket inside of Sage there is an easy way : review it. The review is already going on, join it if you like (on the ticket) ! And doing this job is the only way to know if a patch is ready to get in or not. Nathann -- 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.
[sage-combinat-devel] Re: ANR grant application for Sage-Combinat
Dear Sage-Combinat devs in France and Québec, On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 04:27:37PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: I submitted this morning the ANR grant pre-proposal ``Mutualized software development for research in combinatorics and beyond''. Thank you to all who contributed! We should get an answer in a few months. Just got the answer: it's negative. Oh well. Thank you everybody! We will seek other opportunities. In particular, following some presentations we had here about European grants, I have started to explore the options there, the right scale being probably Sage rather than Sage-Combined. Details to come soon! Best regards, 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.
[sage-combinat-devel] Sage Days in Chicago
Hi! Just heads up: Aaron Lauve and Peter Tingley are planning to host Sage Days in Chicago during the summer of 2015 (not 2014!!). This will focus on representation theory, crystals, and combinatorics. Best, Anne -- 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.
Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:42:04 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote: If you want to get this ticket inside of Sage there is an easy way : review it. +1 also would save me a lot of time -- 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.
[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions
Hi Travis On 2014-03-11, Travis Scrimshaw tsc...@ucdavis.edu wrote: I've been using #10963 in developing #14901 (Lie algebras). I first gave 'Lie' as an axiom of NonAssociativeNonUnitalAlgebras (which I just asked Nicolas for how to do it without really looking at the examples), Good to get the opinion of someone who has actually used the axiom framework! Now I feel that Volker's suggestion of making axioms into objects is a somewhat heavy-handed approach to something which is basically to act as a property, close to decorator interfaces in Java but here axiom determine inheritance. So I'd think a list/tuple of strings specifying what axioms are implemented is a better way to do it if we don't want to use Nicolas' implementation (which I don't object to). In what location would you put the specification of an axiom and in what location would you put the documentation of a concrete implementation of the specified axiom, when axioms are lists of strings? On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they don't like the current implementation without providing a working alternative and can demonstrate why it's better. Yes and no. We are talking here about a substantial change to a fundamental part of Sage potentially affecting most computations done in Sage. So, being paranoic makes sense. On the other hand, *because* it affects virtually everything in Sage, the fact that make ptest works indicates that the axiom framework is sane. Indeed, from my perspective, three aspects are holding up the review: Documentation, (in)transparency of the code, and the ease of defining/implementing axioms. The documentation has improved in the meantime. Concerning the third aspect, I think your testimonial is important. And moreover, I agree with you that the idioms for coding new axioms can be improved later, provided that the innards of the framework are sane (which I think is mostly the case). Best regards, Simon -- 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.
Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Sage Days in Chicago
So, no Sage Days in the US this summer ? What happened to the Berkeley-Davis Sage days ? See you Viviane 2014-03-11 21:46 GMT+01:00 Anne Schilling a...@math.ucdavis.edu: Hi! Just heads up: Aaron Lauve and Peter Tingley are planning to host Sage Days in Chicago during the summer of 2015 (not 2014!!). This will focus on representation theory, crystals, and combinatorics. Best, Anne -- 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. -- 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.
[sage-combinat-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote: On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they don't like the current implementation without providing a working alternative and can demonstrate why it's better. Do you think that a patch should automatically be merged when it has been waiting for a reviewer for a long time ? That's not close to what I said. From time to time, I think that what a ticket implement is not a good idea. I usually say so on the ticket and refuse to review it (i.e. #13624). This is a bad practice. Some implementation is better than none, and doing things your way turns people off from reviewing the tickets. I still think that implementing the reviewer's remarks is the author's job, though. Otherwise you will end up with careless reviews, because the reviewers have no time to improve somebody else's code. And I wouldn't want to see careless patches either, written assuming that the reviewer will fix the problems. I'm not disagreeing with you when there are errors and specific comments. Yet when the reviewer refuses to let something into Sage because (s)he thinks there is a better way without demonstration slows and sometimes halts progress. Otherwise we should stop improving computers because there's a better way to make them, so let's figure that out first before doing anything more. There are so many examples in history of things we should have done differently, but we only found out by doing the wrong thing first. BTW, that is one slipperly slope of logic jumps. Best, Travis -- 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.
Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: [sage-devel] Re: Call for vote about ticket #10963: axioms and more functorial constructions
Paul, Instead, I would advocate using a declarative domain specific language built for semi-formalizing mathematics The appeal of this paradigm is evident. It addresses a fundamentally important issue: how to structure the development process to encourage the code to reflect the mathematics in the most transparent fashion. Alas, it appears that this is a fair distance from being implemented in python, and many important details need to be worked out. If there was a prototype version with a demonstration-in-principle then it would be the right time to debate this approach. In the meantime, we all need a version of sage to work with... --Mark -- 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.
