#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 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Old description:
> Set up the algebra to handle multiple bases; implemented the Kazhdan--
> Lusztig basis.
>
> This is a follow up to ticket #7729.
>
> See http://wiki.sagemath.org/HeckeAlgebras for some design discussion.
>
> ----
>
> Apply:
>
> * [attachment:trac_14261-iwahori_hecke-ts.patch]
New description:
Set up the algebra to handle multiple bases; implemented the Kazhdan--
Lusztig basis.
This is a follow up to ticket #7729.
See http://wiki.sagemath.org/HeckeAlgebras for some design discussion.
----
Apply:
* [attachment:trac_14261-iwahori_hecke-ts.patch]
* [attachment:trac_14261-iwahori_hecke-review--am.patch]
--
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:66 andrew.mathas]:
> **Travis:** There is an error i the documentation on line 185:
> {{{
> :meth:`bar involution
<IwahoriHeckeAlgebra._BasesCategory.ElementMethods.bar>`
> }}}
> The `bar involution` should presumably be a link to the corresponding
method but the link i not showing up. I haven't seen this syntax before so
I'm not sure of the best way to fix it. Could you please have a look?
The syntax is :meth:`this is the displayed text <link.to.method>`. However
it's not working because the link is no longer there in the documentation,
so you can simply remove the doc link.
> I'm fairly happy with the patch now. As we (Brant, Travis and I) are now
all listed as authors what is the protocol for giving this a positive
review? Can we just agree amongst ourselves or should be lean on some one?
It would be a cross-review, we review the other's code (basically what
we've been doing). It's a positive review on my part once Andrew makes the
minor tweak to his review patch about the link.
Best,[[BR]]
Travis
For patchbot:
Apply: trac_14261-iwahori_hecke-ts.patch, attachment:trac_14261
-iwahori_hecke-review--am.patch
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14261#comment:69>
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.
