That's fair enough, especially in the case where you are comparing A
with a subgroup of itself.

John

2008/5/8 Utpal Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>  I think it should be considered a bug, because it is sage, not the
>  user, that decides what presentation to use. In this example, the
>  group A is not considered equal to the subgroup generated by its
>  generators (groups that are not only isomorphic, but really equal),
>  because internally the presentation of the subgroup differs from that
>  of the ambient group.
>  On the other hand, there are isomorphic groups with different
>  presentations that are considered equal:
>  AbelianGroup([6]) == AbelianGroup([1,6])
>  True
>
>
>
>
>  On May 8, 10:16 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > Is this actually a bug?  It would certainly wrong if the test being
>  > performed was isomorphism rather than equality, but I think it is
>  > actually reasonable for two finite abelian groups to only be reported
>  > as "equal" when they are presented the same way.
>  >
>  > John Cremona
>  >
>  > 2008/5/7 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> >
>  >
>  >
>  > >  On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Utpal Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > >  >  Hi there,
>  >
>  > >  >  When I define an abelian group
>  > >  >  A = AbelianGroup(1,[6])
>  > >  >  and then generate a subgroup that actually is the whole group itself,
>  > >  >  and then compare it to the original group:
>  > >  >  A.subgroup(list(A.gens())) == A
>  > >  >  the result may be either True or False. In this example it is False.
>  > >  >  When defining A as
>  > >  >  A = AbelianGroup(2,[3,2])
>  > >  >  it is False as well, but when I define it as
>  > >  >  A = AbelianGroup(2,[2,3])
>  > >  >  it is True.
>  > >  >  My guess is that this is because comparison of finite Abelian groups
>  > >  >  is implemented using their invariant factors, but when you create the
>  > >  >  group using factors that are not in canonical form or not in
>  > >  >  increasing order, these are used instead of the ordered list of
>  > >  >  invariant factors anyway.
>  >
>  > >  >  Greetings,
>  >
>  > >  >  Utpal
>  >
>  > >  Thanks for reporting this bug!  We are tracking it here:
>  >
>  > >    http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3127
>  >
>  > >   -- William
>  >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to