Hey Mark and Nicolas,
> Generally how does one handle the notational difference
> > between additive and multiplicative groups?
> > I just want to deal with all groups the same way.
>
> It's a can of worm; as far as I know no system has a good way to
> handle this. Probably the easiest for you
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 04:45:13PM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> Anyone understand the behavior
>
> sage: RR^2 in Groups()
> False
>
> Certainly (RR^2,+) should be a group.
Abstractly speaking, yes, RR^2 is a group. But on a computer you need
to specify what the notations are for the operations
Anyone understand the behavior
sage: RR^2 in Groups()
False
Certainly (RR^2,+) should be a group. I tried to construct
GL(2,RR) semidirect RR^2
and found the above behavior.
Generally how does one handle the notational difference
between additive and multiplicative groups?
I just want to deal
Hi Frederic,
If you want the English spelling, I think it is "crystallographic".
Best,
Anne
On 5/31/13 12:41 PM, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
> And it is spelled in sage/combinat with just one !
>
> I have made a (little bomb) patch at
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14673
>
> turnin
Hi Federic,
If you want the English spelling, I think it is "crystallographic".
Best,
Anne
On 5/31/13 12:41 PM, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
> And it is spelled in sage/combinat with just one !
>
> I have made a (little bomb) patch at
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14673
>
> turning
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 03:20:48PM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> Ooh, I can see implementation issues.
> They center around evaluating an inverse morphism.
Yup, there certainly is no generic way of computing inverse morphisms.
Only in certain categories is this guaranteed to be computable /
effic
And it is spelled in sage/combinat with just one !
I have made a (little bomb) patch at
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14673
turning everything to cristallographic
I think this is necessary, but I am afraid it may cause a lot of trouble in
the combinat queue
Opinions ?
Frederic
Nicolas,
> > Does sage have a functorial Aut construction,
> > which yields the group of automorphisms of some object in a category?
>
> Not yet; it just has End.
Ooh, I can see implementation issues.
They center around evaluating an inverse morphism.
Say f:A--->A is an automorphism of an infin
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 01:14:09PM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> Does sage have a functorial Aut construction,
> which yields the group of automorphisms of some object in a category?
Not yet; it just has End.
> I want to use this to define a functorial construction of semidirect products
> in t
Nicolas,
Does sage have a functorial Aut construction,
which yields the group of automorphisms of some object in a category?
I want to use this to define a functorial construction of semidirect products
in the Groups() category.
Of course it would generally be difficult to test membership in Au
10 matches
Mail list logo