> Unfortunately, this is "expected" output.  
>

No problem. I'm glad you confirmed this because I wasn't sure if I was 
doing something wrong.
 

>
> AFAICS classical Axiom answer for changing output is to define 
> new domain, wrapping the old one, but having different coercion 
> to OutputForm.  In case of tensor products this does not 
> work so nice: we would need a separate domain for each arity.. 
>

Well, listOfTerms apparently works, so it's usable (output form isn't 
really important here).
As remarked, I thought I'd be off the track.

(35) -> listOfTerms t123

   (35)
                   1                            3
   [[k = [[e ,g ],h ],c = 3q x], [k = [[e ,g ],h ],c = - q x z],
            1  2                         1  2
                   1                            3
    [k = [[e ,g ],h ],c = 3r x], [k = [[e ,g ],h ],c = - r x z],
            1  4                         1  4
                   1                              3
    [k = [[e ,g ],h ],c = - 3q y], [k = [[e ,g ],h ],c = q y z],
            3  2                           3  2
                   1                              3
    [k = [[e ,g ],h ],c = - 3r y], [k = [[e ,g ],h ],c = r y z]]
            3  4                           3  4
Type: List(Record(k: Product(Product(OrderedVariableList([e[1],e[2],e[3]]),
OrderedVariableList([g[1],g[2],g[3],g[4]])),
OrderedVariableList([h[;1],h[;2],h[;3],h[;4]])),c: Expression(Integer)))
 

>
> > I'm also wondering why in TensorProduct(R, B1, B2, M1, M2) 
> > the ordered sets B1,B2 are not extracted from M1,M2 (I guess there is 
> reason for 
> > that). Moreover it would be nice if an ordered basis could be exported 
> from TP 
> > which can be reused when building higher orders. 
>
> Well, the general style used in Axiom was to pass all parameters, 
> both needed explicitely and implicitely (that is parameters to 
> parameters).  


I see, seems reasonable.
 

> One reason was that in Axiom extraction of type 
> parameters was not possible: functions in Axiom could not return 
> types. 
>

Yes indeed, otherwise a fix of the coerce function in TP would be easy - 
just recursively testing if B1 and/or B2 is a Product.
Thank you for explaining.


> -- 
>                               Waldek Hebisch 
>

 

-- 
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to