On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 09:04:13PM -0800, bump wrote:
> I reposted the iwahori.patch on the trac server. The posted version
> includes
> Nicolas' two patches from the combinat queue.
Ok.
> I did not qfold the patches on the queue, but if you want to do
> that, the resulting patch
Ok.
> There is
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 09:09:36PM -0800, bump wrote:
> > By [Kac, Proposition 6.5] the affine Weyl group is a semidirect
> > product of the finite Weyl group and translations in the coroot lattice.
> > The extended affine Weyl group uses the coweight lattice instead.
> > Elements in the extended a
> By [Kac, Proposition 6.5] the affine Weyl group is a semidirect
> product of the finite Weyl group and translations in the coroot lattice.
> The extended affine Weyl group uses the coweight lattice instead.
> Elements in the extended affine Weyl group can also be expressed
> as elements in the af
I reposted the iwahori.patch on the trac server. The posted version
includes
Nicolas' two patches from the combinat queue.
I did not qfold the patches on the queue, but if you want to do that,
the resulting
patch
There is one issue which remains. There is a query in the source
(from Nicolas) as t
Dear Dan,
I am not so familiar with the Iwahori and Matsumoto set-up, but
I assume, as Nicolas mentioned before, this is equivalent to the
extended affine Weyl group, see for example Section 2.4 in
http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/0605.5451
By [Kac, Proposition 6.5] the affine Weyl group is a semid
> Dan: given the amount of change, let me know if it's best to keep the
> reviewer's patch separated, or to fold the two of them before you
> review my changes.
The reviewer patch is big enough that I need to study the changes,
so let's keep them separated for now.
About the tests, I several tim
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:11:13PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 02:39:33PM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote:
> > When specifying both parameters q1=q2=0, should one obtain the
> > nilCoxeter algebra, so s1^2=0? However, the code seems to give:
> >
> > sage: R = IwahoriHecke
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 02:39:33PM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote:
> When specifying both parameters q1=q2=0, should one obtain the
> nilCoxeter algebra, so s1^2=0? However, the code seems to give:
>
> sage: R = IwahoriHeckeAlgebraT("A3",0,0,prefix = "s")
> sage: [s1,s2,s3] = R.algebra_generators()
>
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 02:39:33PM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote:
> Also, I get some test failures for 7729 (they all seem trivial since the order
> of the summands is just interchanged), but nonetheless:
Same thing here. I just imported the patch in the Sage-Combinat queue,
and added a patch that
