Hi
> I think the design problem comes from the fact the "category of
> enumerated sets" is not real "category" from the mathematical point of
> view, although you can embed it inside the category of totally ordered
> sets with the "enumeration order", that point of view might solve some
> o
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria
wrote:
> This doesn't happen in "sage -python", but it does happen in "sage
> -ipython", so I guess is ipython related. However, both versions seem
> to be using ipython 9.1...
This is the pprint (pretty print) module. From ipython's man page:
-[
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
>
>
> This is a bit disconcerting:
>
> sage: Set(['a', 'b', 'c'])
> {'a', 'c', 'b'}
I am surprised by the following:
sage: s = set(['a', 'b', 'c'])
sage: repr(s)
"set(['a', 'c', 'b'])"
sage: str(s)
"set(['a', 'c', 'b'])"
s
Hi there,
On Nov 8, 9:36 am, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> There are some design questions which prevented me to do it at first. Let's
> start with the simple one:
>
> - on mathematical sets we have the notion of intersection, union, symmetric
> difference. When dealing with EnumeratedSets, does some
Hi Alex,
By the way, I think this is a good moment to advertise for a very good idea
Nicolas had a few years ago, that is to implement and use the very common and
basic notion of family:
A Family is an associative container which models a family
`(f_i)_{i in I}`. Then, f[i]
Hi there,
> And another example, where I (would like to) follow the example of the
> constructor for multivariate polynomials:
>
> sage: FreeGroup('x', 10)
> Expected:
> Free Group on the Set {x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9}
> Got:
> Free Group on the Set {x8, x9, x2, x
> sage: G. = FreeGroup()
> sage: G
> Free Group on the Set {a, c, b}
> sage: b
> c
>
> This is probably due more to crappy programming on my part rather than
> the Set issue, but the latter did confuse me.
I think this is due to a poor definition: the decision was made that
variables are named
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
>
>
> This is a bit disconcerting:
>
> sage: Set(['a', 'b', 'c'])
> {'a', 'c', 'b'}
> sage: Set(['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'])
> {'a', 'c', 'b', 'd'}
> sage: Set(['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'])
> {'a', 'c', 'b', 'e', 'd'}
>
> Bug? It doesn't seem to happen wi
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 08:44:11PM -0800, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>
> Sets are unordered. Why does the display order changing worry you?
>
Of course they are. So mathematically speaking everything is fine.
However, unless there's a good reason for Set(['a', 'b', 'c']) to
result in {'a', 'c',
On 7-Nov-09, at 8:29 PM, Alex Ghitza wrote:
>
>
> This is a bit disconcerting:
>
> sage: Set(['a', 'b', 'c'])
> {'a', 'c', 'b'}
> sage: Set(['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'])
> {'a', 'c', 'b', 'd'}
> sage: Set(['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'])
> {'a', 'c', 'b', 'e', 'd'}
>
> Bug? It doesn't seem to happen with lis
10 matches
Mail list logo
