On 11 September 2012 13:16, Volker Braun <vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > But I need the classical invariants / covariants with their conventional > names and normalizations in the literature. I'm not trying to do the most > general SL(n,C) representation theory here. >
I agree (for my own applications). Of course I do not mind if the functionality is provided by some more general framework, but you must admit that (for example) binary forms do have quantities associated with them called invariants, which users should be able to get their hands on. I don't think we would be very popular if it was not possible to get the discriminant of a polynomial without constructing a representation! John > > On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:12:57 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> Yes, it's great, but I would rather like to see it packaged as invariants >> of a representation of SL(2,C), not >> as invariants of a binary form. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To post to this group, send email to sage-de...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
