#14291: Orbits of tuples and sets
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner: joyner
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.9
Component: group theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers:
Authors: Nathann Cohen | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Comment (by dimpase):
Replying to [comment:19 ncohen]:
> > Can't you typify the domain elements somehow, so that they are
recognised as atoms without this kind of problem? (Or mangle them by some
other means...)
>
> Hmmmmmmmmm.... I have no idea how, an I would hate to have to use the
Parent/Element stuff to do that `:-P`
>
> Well, I guess the best is to do as you first did and to split according
to the value of `action`.
this is too ugly, uglier than using a class, or whatever. Actually, I
think it is simply wrong to let groups act on some totally unstructured
arbitrary sh*t, and this is exactly what happens right now with allowing
arbitrary domain elements, for which any relation to the original domain
is lost.
Say, if the domain of a group is {1,2,3,4,{1,2},{2,3}}, the very notion of
the orbit of {1,2} is becoming ambiguous, as in a sane world {1,2} is a
subset of {1,2,3,4}, and not a random label.
Dima
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14291#comment:20>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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 http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
