#14261: Iwahori-Hecke algebra with several bases
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  brant              |        Owner:  sage-combinat
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_review
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-5.13
      Component:  combinatorics      |   Resolution:
       Keywords:  Iwahori Hecke      |    Merged in:
  algebra                            |    Reviewers:  Andrew Mathas, Brant
        Authors:  Brant Jones,       |  Jones, Travis Scrimshaw
  Travis Scrimshaw, Andrew Mathas    |  Work issues:
Report Upstream:  N/A                |       Commit:
         Branch:                     |     Stopgaps:
   Dependencies:  #13735 #14014      |
  #14678 #14516                      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by tscrim):

 Hey Andrew,

 Andrew, thank you for reworking this to handle KL basis in
 specializations.

 Hey everyone,

 Here's the new version of the patch with Andrew's review patch, the alt
 interface patch, and the term compare patch folded in. I've also done the
 following:
 * fixed some typos,
 * changed `_AGenericIwahoriHeckeAlgebra` to `GenericIwahoriHeckeAlgebra`
 since it is a more natural name and to allow it to be seen in the
 documentation,
 * removed the `to_C[p]_basis()` methods which did
   {{{
   return sum(H._bar_on_coefficients(coeff) * (-1)^w.length()*C(w)  for
 (w,coeff) in self)
   }}}
   since this looked like it was intended as an element method and it did
 not agree with going through the T basis.

 I don't know of a way to test if the parameters are truly generic or not.
 I'm not completely in favor of having the bases category accessible from
 the `IwahoriHeckeAlgebra` instance (which does follow `QSym`) since the
 category should be behind the scene as far as `IwahoriHeckeAlgebra` is
 concerned and I would expect `Bases` to return a list of bases (up to the
 mismatch with convention). I'd prefer to have it as its own separate
 class, but I'd like to get opinions on the matter first.

 Thanks,[[BR]]
 Travis

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14261#comment:53>
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