#9439: hyperbolic geometry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reporter: vdelecroix |
Owner: vdelecroix
Type: enhancement |
Status: new
Priority: major |
Milestone: sage-5.11
Component: geometry |
Resolution:
Keywords: hyperbolic geometry, Poincare disc, upper half plane, sd35 |
Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Reviewers: Johan Bosman
Authors: Vincent Delecroix, Martin Raum |
Merged in:
Dependencies: |
Stopgaps:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Hi,
Replying to [comment:26 glaun]:
> I've addressed issues 1-4, and I was hoping you wouldn't mind giving me
some guidance about how to handle the remaining issues. Specifically, I
have the following questions:
>
> 1) Should I post a patch for the fixes of 1-4? Or should I wait until I
fix the remaining issues? More generally, should I err on the side of
posting more patches (so more people can help) or posting only ones that
seem more significant?
Not necessarily. You can fold your two patches into one and post only the
update version of your previous patch (to fold two patches `hg qfold`).
> 2) I like the structure of your code, and I aim to emulate it. Does it
make sense for me to combine your class structure with the features in
mine and post it in skeletal form before fixing all of the functions? For
example, I could post a class diagram, or just an outline of the modules
with the guts removed. Or is this step likely to be more work with little
payoff? I would ideally like the structure to be as democratically
decided as possible.
Your code definitely contains much more material than mine. If you like
better the structure I drafted you are free to reuse it. If you post
anything on trac it is always better that it is working code.
In my opinion, as you are currently working on that project, you may
choose the datastructure you prefer and indicate '''clearly''' in the
documentation the concept, why did you choose that design and why did you
discard the other ones.
> 3) I find your usage of HyperbolicPlane for the upper half plane to be
confusing since the HyperbolicDisc is also topologically a plane.
I agree. It was just because I always find HH and DD in textbooks and did
not ask myself more questions.
> I'm used to referring to both as the hyperbolic plane, and I typically
differentiate them by specifying which model of the plane. I have been
using the abbreviations UHP, PD, KM, and HM which were just decided by
fiat to be short and convenient. Is there anything you dislike about this
approach to naming? I worry that HyperbolicUHP is too cryptic, but
HyperbolicUpperHalfPlane is too long.
I like better UHP, PD, KM and HM but I think they should not be imported
in the standard namespace as such (because it is not clear how the user
may find them). What about something like:
{{{
sage: hyperbolic_geometry.upper_half_plane()
The upper half plane
sage: hyperbolic_geometry.UHP
The upper half plane
etc
}}}
That way, we may use tab completion. But perhaps, "hyperbolic_geometry" is
a bit too long. If somebody want it in the global namespace it is still
possible to do
{{{
sage: from sage.XXX.hyperbolic_geometry import *
sage: UHP
The upper half plane
}}}
Vincent
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9439#comment:27>
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
