On Friday 15 March 2024 at 15:08:34 UTC-7 Hellen Colman wrote: Let me just clarify the main point of his question just in case we can still obtain a helpful answer. Essentially the question is: Why is Sage calling "antisymmetric" to a property that is not the standard antisymmetric property?

I agree that a relation gives rise to a graph, but I wouldn't presume that the standard notion of "antisymmetric" for relations would agree with that on graphs (or even that there would be a property of graphs that is called "antisymmetric). So if there is something transferable to be learned for for students here it is perhaps that terminology is not perfectly aligned between different areas in mathematics. Given that the word "antisymmetric" is now taken to mean something specific for graphs (I assume whoever did that consulted some graph-theory books), it will have considerable inertia because changing it to something else would break backward compatibility. If you feel strongly that a change in terminology would be beneficial, you could collect some references corroborating your proposed meaning. If someone else feels strongly enough about preserving the present meaning, they would likely counter with their own set of references. At that point hopefully a consensus would grow, with a (slight) preference for the status quo. If both notions have support, we'd likely look into a way of supporting both; probably by dangling the appropriate adjectives in front of "antisymmetric", like "edge_antisymmetric" and "path_antisymmetric" or something like that. For your research, you might be interested in an is_homotopically_equivalent method. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-support/8b537b0f-d1bb-41eb-95f6-33c8a2c4c3d6n%40googlegroups.com.