Here's a thought for something that could work for elements. Make it a
wrapper around the element you'd do computations in and have a lazy
attribute for the converted element, and I think you can use __getattr__
(or __getattribute__?) to rediect to the wrapped element and I think this
works wit
Andrew and Nicolas,
> But I don't think many -- if any -- are using directly the
> HeckeAlgebraRepresentation class. So feel free to move it around
> and/or refactor it. It would definitely be sensible to have two
> classes in the sage.algebras.hecke_algebras:
>
> class IwahoriHeckeAlgebraR
On 12/11/2014 4:26 am, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Is this close enough from what you would want?
sage: F = CombinatorialFreeModule(QQ, [1,2,3])
sage: G = CombinatorialFreeModule(QQ, [4,5,6])
sage: phi = F.module_morphism(lambda i: G.monomial(i+3), codomain=G)
sage: psi = G.module_m
Hey Andrew,
My comment wasn't intended as a criticism of the code or of anyone: it is
> great that Mike, Nicolas, Christian and others developed this. Nor was it
> meat as a complaint as I think that our general philosophy is that if you
> don't like something then discuss and put a patch on t
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:47:21PM -0800, Andrew wrote:
>This is probably the most sensible thing to do, and certainly seems to
>be the consensus. Just for fun there are also "degenerate" and
>"non-degenerate" forms of these representations.
I love 0-Hecke :-)
>I'm slightly bemuse
Dear Andrew, dear Éric,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:33:35AM -0800, Andrew wrote:
>My comment wasn't intended as a criticism of the code or of anyone:
No worry, there was no ambiguity :-)
>Down the track, what I would like to see is a way of dynamically
>adding bases to a Combi
Dear Andrew,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:50:50PM -0800, Andrew wrote:
> This sounds really impressive. Perhaps it is enough to use chevie...in
> which case we should update the version of chevie that ships with sage (or
> os gap3 still optional?).
Yes, please update the version. You can take the
On Tuesday, 11 November 2014 17:20:32 UTC+11, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
> Hey Andrew,
>
> One of the things that I don't like about (my understanding of) the
>> CombinatorialFreeModule approach to modules is that it is very hard for the
>> (uneducated/unenlightened/unwashed) user to construct t
