On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> It seems that FreeAlgebraElement is missing some accessors:
> It is very easy to create elements:
> sage: sage: A.=FreeAlgebra(ZZ,3)
> sage: bla = -x+3*y*z
> sage: bla
> -x + 3*y*z
> but I can't find any wa
Dear William,
> FreeAlgebraElement was written in 2005, and nobody has worked on it since.
> Maybe now it is your turn.
Or my student's :). That was my intention ! The obvious question is now the
naming convention. It seems to me that we should stick as close as possible to
polynomials:
s
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
>
> Dear William,
>
>> FreeAlgebraElement was written in 2005, and nobody has worked on it since.
>> Maybe now it is your turn.
>
> Or my student's :). That was my intention ! The obvious question is now the
> naming convention. It seems
On 12-May-09, at 7:56 AM, Florent Hivert wrote:
>
> Dear William,
>
>> FreeAlgebraElement was written in 2005, and nobody has worked on it
>> since.
>> Maybe now it is your turn.
>
> Or my student's :). That was my intention ! The obvious question is
> now the
> naming convention. It se
Hi Florent,
I think the polynomial ring model should translate well
to the non-commutative free algebras. In addition to
access, specifying a (non-commutative) monomial
ordering would be desirable. Generalizing these
orderings is the only challenge in the generalization
from free commutative al
Dear William,
> > Or my student's :). That was my intention ! The obvious question is now the
> > naming convention. It seems to me that we should stick as close as possible
> > to
> > polynomials:
> >
> > sage: ring = ZZ['x1,x2']
> > sage: x1 = ring.gens()[0] # why x1 is not defin
Dear David,
> I think the polynomial ring model should translate well
> to the non-commutative free algebras. In addition to
> access, specifying a (non-commutative) monomial
> ordering would be desirable. Generalizing these
> orderings is the only challenge in the generalization
> from f
