Nicolas,
Does it make sense to have a particular abstract object
in an abstract category in sage and be able to work with it and describe
its properties, all on the abstract level?
What I have in mind is the unit object in the tensor category of
modules.
I have this working concretely (tensors
Hey everyone,
I've been using #10963 in developing #14901 (Lie algebras). I first gave
'Lie' as an axiom of NonAssociativeNonUnitalAlgebras (which I just asked
Nicolas for how to do it without really looking at the examples), but
decided that I didn't want _mul_() to give the Lie bracket, so
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can demonstrate why it's better.
Do you think that a patch should automatically be merged when it has been
waiting for a reviewer for a
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can demonstrate why it's better.
Do you think that a patch
Hey John no worries, I was only answering Travis' post and this
(rethorical) question was just meant as a way to show that I did not concur
with his view that reviewers should have to implement their remarks when
the review gets long.
Nathann
On Tuesday, 11 March 2014, John H Palmieri
On 3/11/14 1:20 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because
they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can
Helloo !
I agree with John. I actually think Nicolas is quite patient trying to answer
all questions.
You are so kind.
My suggestion would be either for Volker to implement his alternative on a
different ticket, so we
can see it in action and test it, or to let Nicolas' patch go in
Dear Sage-Combinat devs in France and Québec,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 04:27:37PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
I submitted this morning the ANR grant pre-proposal ``Mutualized
software development for research in combinatorics and
beyond''. Thank you to all who contributed! We should
Hi!
Just heads up:
Aaron Lauve and Peter Tingley are planning to host Sage Days in Chicago during
the
summer of 2015 (not 2014!!). This will focus on representation theory, crystals,
and combinatorics.
Best,
Anne
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:42:04 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
If you want to get this ticket inside of Sage there is an easy way :
review it.
+1
also would save me a lot of time
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sage-combinat-devel group.
To
Hi Travis
On 2014-03-11, Travis Scrimshaw tsc...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
I've been using #10963 in developing #14901 (Lie algebras). I first gave
'Lie' as an axiom of NonAssociativeNonUnitalAlgebras (which I just asked
Nicolas for how to do it without really looking at the examples),
Good to
So, no Sage Days in the US this summer ? What happened to the
Berkeley-Davis Sage days ?
See you
Viviane
2014-03-11 21:46 GMT+01:00 Anne Schilling a...@math.ucdavis.edu:
Hi!
Just heads up:
Aaron Lauve and Peter Tingley are planning to host Sage Days in Chicago
during the
summer of 2015
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:40:41 PM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
On that note, I think reviewers shouldn't hold up tickets because they
don't like the current implementation without providing a working
alternative and can demonstrate why it's better.
Do you think that a patch
Paul,
Instead, I would advocate using a declarative domain specific language built
for semi-formalizing
mathematics
The appeal of this paradigm is evident. It addresses
a fundamentally important issue: how to structure the development process to
encourage the code to reflect the mathematics
14 matches
Mail list logo
