On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:49:21PM -0700, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
I would like to understand if there is any reason why my patch
trac_10167-posets_Jposet_ARmatrix_fc.patch
is placed in the experimental section ? I would like to have it just
after the following patches, since it's on the
Salut Nicolas,
ok, tu as le feu vert pour modifier mon patch pour enlever la
dependance.
I think the method auslander_reiten_matrix should really be called
*coxeter_transformation*, because this is the usual name. One speaks
of the Auslander-Reiten functor, but this is not the same thing.
Once
Hi,
I opened a ticket concerning a problem with pickle for CFM with basis
being sage.structure.parent.Set_PythonType(tuple), see Ticket #10962.
Best, Christian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-combinat-devel group.
To post to this group, send
Hi!
If someone wants a trivial review, here is one!
The only thing is whether one would prefer another name like
F.lie_bracket(x,y)? And of course possibly typos in the doc.
- Forwarded message from Sage wst...@math.washington.edu -
#10961: Add Lie bracket operation in Rings
Hi,
For some calculations with monoids last week, I started creating the
Posets category, in preparation for later having several classes for
posets, including infinite/lazy/... (see e.g. #10783) #10777 could
also make use of that as a basis for CombinatorialPolytope.
sounds good!
So I was
Hello!
We have a heated debate on http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10140
regarding the following issue.
When a user writes
Cone(rays=[(1,0), (0,1)])
and the internal framework that eliminates unnecessary generators
comes up with a cone generated by (0,1) and (1,0) (i.e. same rays but
On the subject of pickling I just found out the hard way that the pickle jar
is no longer tested by default, since trac_10712, which was merged in 4.6.2
marks the following test in sage_object.pyx long time that tests the
pickle jar.
- sage: print x; sage.structure.sage_object.unpickle_all()
+
