#14981: Descent algebra
---------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
       Reporter:  tscrim                     |         Owner:  sage-
           Type:  enhancement                |  combinat
       Priority:  major                      |        Status:  needs_review
      Component:  combinatorics              |     Milestone:  sage-5.12
       Keywords:  Solomon's descent algebra  |    Resolution:
        Authors:  Travis Scrimshaw           |     Merged in:
Report Upstream:  N/A                        |     Reviewers:
         Branch:                             |   Work issues:
       Stopgaps:                             |  Dependencies:
---------------------------------------------+-----------------------------

Comment (by darij):

 I've attached a partial review patch
 [attachment:trac_14981-descent_review_part_1-dg.patch]. Please look it
 over. I've removed {{{one_basis}}} from the universal methods and added it
 to the D and B basis, since the version you had would give wrong answers
 in the D case. I believe that in the I basis, the 1 is not a basis element
 (but I might be wrong here).

 I'll eventually return and finish the review, but first I'd prefer to see
 the following issue resolved:

 It's way too tricky to call an element of the D basis. The usual trick
 people are doing works for subsets of size >= 2:
 {{{
 sage: D = DescentAlgebra(QQ, 4).D()
 sage: D[1,3]
 D{1, 3}
 }}}
 but this is widely agreed to be syntactic sugar. One-element sets work
 only if a comma is added at the end ({{{D[4,]}}} works, but {{{D[4]}}}
 does not), and the empty set doesn't work at all. Moreover, this syntax is
 unchecked ({{{D[666,444]}}} works just as well) and falsely suggests that
 it takes compositions where it really takes subsets.

 Neither of {{{D({1,3})}}}, {{{D(set([1,3]))}}}, {{{D(Set([1,3]))}}} works.
 The only thing that reliably works for all subsets is this:

 {{{
 sage: D.basis()[(1,3)]
 D{1, 3}
 sage: D.basis()[(1,)]
 D{1}
 sage: D.basis()[()]
 D{}
 }}}

 But I don't think such a detour should be necessary.

 Eventually there should be conversions into the symmetric group algebra
 and into and from NSym. The latter should be easy to do; the former is
 probably best done after dealing with the #14885 mess.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14981#comment:3>
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.


Reply via email to