https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/29610
and asking for help. It is my hope that eventually some version of that ticket would make it to SageMath. I've implemented Vertex algebras, Lie Conformal Algebras and Poisson Vertex Algebras. Some of the description is in the ticket itself and most examples are in the manuals that are compiled mainly in the pages:
http://potuz.net/reference/algebras/sage/algebras/vertex_algebras/vertex_algebra.html http://potuz.net/reference/algebras/vertex_algebras/vertex_algebras.html http://potuz.net/reference/algebras/lie_conformal_algebras/lie_conformal_algebras.html http://potuz.net/reference/algebras/poisson_vertex_algebras/poisson_vertex_algebras.htmlThe patch is not small and is bound to have tons of mistakes/bugs. I'd love to hear any feedback you may have. I understand that reviewing this may be an ungratifying pain. It was suggested by Frédéric Chapoton and Travis Scrimshaw that I should break this patch in smaller pieces in order to get it reviewed. I am happy to do so, but before doing so I wanted to ask opinions here. In principle I could remove all examples of these algebras and leave one to doctest, then break into Lie conformal algebras + vertex algebras + poisson vertex algebras and try to remove the overlap between these classes: like lifting from a Lie conformal algebra to its universal enveloping algebra, or taking classical limits from a vertex algebra to a poisson vertex algebra, or the fact that Poisson vertex algebras are Lie conformal algebras and inherit some of the methods from that category, etc.
Now that I am writing this e-mail I realize that it may be a harder task than I thought. But the point I wanted to make/ask is whether or not this is worth it or even if it is a good model? It looks to me that it will put an unnecessary burden on my part with no gain for the reviewer (besides having less code to read). Maintaining it would be much harder, and the set of examples that the documentation would have would be much smaller. It also looks to me that is actually more error-prone to have bits an pieces of code carefully divided to not break something that was already working as a whole, and to finally have it assembled again. Please take a look at the above pages and you'll see quite a variety of examples, most, if not all, would be gone if I were to divide this into smaller pieces. I get the impression that this does a disservice to someone that wants to read the code. Anyway, I hope someone can take this up. As it stands now it is already useful to me and to my collaborators to have one repository from where they can clone that branch.
Best, R.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/20200628015056.GA1285038%40vertex.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
