On 20/09/16 16:06, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> You are confused.
I have tried the patch and AFAICS it works fine, I would be happy if it
> As a face (part of simplical complex) (1,3) and
> (3, 1) are the same face. And problem is not due to wrong
> orientation of input:
I remember now, it is the same face but we allow it to be included
multiple times in different orientations:
(1) -> ASIMP := FiniteSimplicialComplex(VertexSetAbstract)
(2) -> v2a:List(List(NNI)) := [[1,3],[1,3],[3,1]]
(3) -> sc1 := simplicialComplex(vertexSeta(3::NNI),v2a)$ASIMP
(4) -> addImpliedFaces(sc1)
(5) -> sc1::DeltaComplex(VertexSetAbstract)
1D:[[1,- 2],[1,- 2],[- 1,2]]
Under a strict geometric interpretation of a definition of
simplicialComplex I suspect that this should not be allowed? But, as we
discussed earlier, it is useful not to prevent this to allow
construction of interesting delta complexes.
> - apparently you want chains here. Chains are not the same as
I take your point and I would like to pursue your earlier comments about
having a separate chain domain (though I'm not sure exactly how).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS -
computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.