Indeed, somehow people who wrote the permutation groups code in Sage kept forgetting that a permutation group is a pair (G,X), where G is a group and X is a set, on which G acts. Once you think that you can get away with permutations alone, you are doomed... (same would apply to any group actions, not only to permutation ones; e.g. if you have a linear group, don't even try to forget which vectorspace it operates on)
Sorry for sounding like a grumpy algebra professor :-) Dima On May 20, 3:22 am, Dan Christensen <j...@uwo.ca> wrote: > Most of this discussion is about cases where sage thinks it is acting on > a bigger set than the user wants it to. I'll just point out bug 8963 > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8963 > > where sage has the reverse problem: it thinks that the set that is > being acted on is smaller. For example, it correctly computes that > the row stabilizer group of the tableau [[1,2],[3]] is a group with > two elements generated by the transposition (1,2), but it thinks that > this group is acting on the set {1, 2} rather than the set {1, 2, 3}, > and this leads to difficulties. > > That bug has a patch that fixes this particular problem, but enhancing > sage to know about the set that a permutation group acts on sounds like > a good idea. > > Dan > > -- > To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to > sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel > URL:http://www.sagemath.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
