On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 08:44:57PM -0800, Anne Schilling wrote:
> Regarding the labels you are looking for, perhaps they are these (I do not
> have Kac's book
> with me right not):
>
> sage: R = RootSystem(['A',2,1])
> sage: C = R.cartan_type()
> sage: C
> ['A', 2, 1]
> sage: C.a()
> Finite famil
Hi Dan,
Regarding the labels you are looking for, perhaps they are these (I do not have
Kac's book
with me right not):
sage: R = RootSystem(['A',2,1])
sage: C = R.cartan_type()
sage: C
['A', 2, 1]
sage: C.a()
Finite family {0: 1, 1: 1, 2: 1}
sage: C.acheck()
Finite family {0: 1, 1: 1, 2: 1}
Als
Nicolas,
> > It seems very hacky to look for a method with a certain name,
> > to tell whether the constructor applies (which is what the code does right
> > now).
>
> Is it any different from ``a*b`` or ``sum([a,b,c])``` which check
> (possibly indirectly) whether there is a method called "__ad
Perhaps we should just say that Bourbaki's Cartan matrix is the transpose of
Kac's
and that we follow Kac, omitting reference to the Dynkin diagram at this
point, or
else state (here or elsewhere) that in every convention the arrow points
from the
long root to the short root. I could include a c
Thank you all for sending your references in! We got quite a few new
ones, so please check out the link
http://www.sagemath.org/library-publications-combinat.html
Right now, one of the main sage developers (in this case Harald Schilly,
thanks!)
needs to upload the references by hand from bibtex
Hey Dan,
I was referring to how the arrows correspond to the matrix values.
However I can see the potential confusion and take blame for it. I agree
that we should clarify this.
Best,
Travis
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:56:21 PM UTC-8, bump wrote:
>
> In the Cartan type documentation (ca
In the Cartan type documentation (cartan_type.py) we find the following
statement:
The direction of the arrows is the **opposite** (i.e. the
transpose)
Hi Nicolas
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:30:33PM +0100, Nicolas Borie wrote:
> Does the catgeory guys already think the possibility or utility to
> define the category of :
>
> Representations( ring )
>
> Whose Parents belonging to this catgeory would be a king of meet
> (think meet in term
Hi Mark, Travis!
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 03:28:21PM -0800, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> I would say so. Although at that time I was focused just on piecing
>together the coercions, it probably should be abstracted so we can do
>something like:
>sage: tensor([phi, psi, xi])
>
Hi Mark!
Thanks for putting some stress on the functorial construction code :-)
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:12:20PM -0500, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> I am not entirely happy with the way covariant construction functors are
> applied.
> I think the Cartesian and tensor product constructors sh
Hi Mark!
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:22:43PM -0500, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> I am confused. The tensor covariant functorial construction gets called like
> tensor([A,B,C]).
>
> However there is code in
>
> sage.categories.modules_with_basis.ModulesWithBasis
>
> that has a parent method
11 matches
Mail list logo
