#15205: NSym (NCSF): bugs or weird design decisions
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
   Reporter:  darij      |            Owner:
       Type:  defect     |           Status:  new
   Priority:  major      |        Milestone:  sage-5.12
  Component:             |         Keywords:  sage-combinat, NSym, NCSF,
  combinatorics          |  Sym, symmetric-functions
  Merged in:             |          Authors:
  Reviewers:             |  Report Upstream:  N/A
Work issues:             |           Branch:
     Commit:             |     Dependencies:  #15164
   Stopgaps:             |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Here are the issues that haven't been deal with in #15164:

 * I don't understand why the internal product is implemented in
 {{{ncsf_qsym/generic_basis_code.py}}} rather than {{{ncsf_qsym/ncsf.py}}}.
 Isn't {{{generic_basis_code.py}}} for methods shared between QSym and
 NSym? There is no internal product on QSym.

 * This here is a doctest which has been around before me:
 {{{
                 sage: N = NonCommutativeSymmetricFunctions(QQ)
                 sage: S = N.complete()
                 sage: S.internal_product
                 Generic endomorphism of Non-Commutative Symmetric
 Functions over the Rational Field in the Complete basis
 }}}
 The output makes no sense: The internal product is not an endomorphism of
 anything. I understand it is implemented in some weirdly curried form, but
 then its target should be a Hom space.

 * I was trying to overshadow the {{{verschiebung}}} function I implemented
 on a generic NSym basis by a specific implementation on the ribbon basis.
 So I've added it under {{{class ElementMethods:}}} in the {{{class
 Ribbon}}}. But it doesn't get precedence over the generic implementation
 at runtime! What am I doing wrong? If this can be explained, I'll
 implement the verschiebung on a few more bases (Psi and Phi both have very
 simple formulas).

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15205>
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