well, not my research, but close. here is the doctest that should pass
(modulo typos...):
sage: S = SymmetricFunctions(QQ)
sage: s = S.s()
sage: p = S.p()
sage: pp = tensor([p,p])
sage: t. = PowerSeriesRing(pp,default_prec=5)
( WARNING: this will not work on sage-combinat the the moment, as pp
i
Dear all,
Following the discussion with Paul-Olivier, I became convinced that
the very tolerant conversions provided by CombinatorialFreeModule are
*harmful*, and that we have to disable them. And then, if needed,
think seriously about which mathematically meaningful conversions we
really
Salut!
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 02:40:38PM -0700, Paul-Olivier Dehaye wrote:
> for all that's worth, that won't do for what i am trying. the point is
> to have the generality of alphabets.
Ah, now this is interesting. What exactly do you mean by "generality"
of alphabets? What would be ve
Hi Simon,
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 03:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Michael Brickenstein wrote:
>
> Hi Simon!
> > > It is in fact one of the things that I miss in Sage's polynomial
> > > rings (the other thing are supercommutative rings),
>
> Burcin will visit KL in octobre to work on
> the integration of
> no
