#13872: Non-exceptional rigged configuration bijections
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: tscrim | Owner: tscrim
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.0
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: rigged | Merged in:
configurations bijection | Reviewers: Anne Schilling
crystals, days54 | Work issues:
Authors: Travis Scrimshaw | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | b9f49b8c48e268190675f3bc284b2dbcb7b3d076
Branch: | Stopgaps:
public/combinat/rigged_configurations/bijections-13872|
Dependencies: #13838 #14519 |
#14402 #14157 #13605 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by aschilling):
I looked at your latest changes. Why are the changes in
crystals/tensor_product.py necessary? Also, the equality between the one-
dimensional configuration sums and fermionic formula has been proven in
many cases. So the statement that it is conjectural is not quite right.
Please add references!
Also, with the new code I get doc test failures
{{{
sage -t tensor_product.py
**********************************************************************
File "tensor_product.py", line 278, in
sage.combinat.crystals.tensor_product.CrystalOfWords.one_dimensional_configuration_sum
Failed example:
LS.one_dimensional_configuration_sum() ==
T.one_dimensional_configuration_sum()
Expected:
True
Got:
False
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
1 of 14 in
sage.combinat.crystals.tensor_product.CrystalOfWords.one_dimensional_configuration_sum
[361 tests, 1 failure, 48.77 s]
sage -t alcove_path.py
[220 tests, 41.31 s]
sage -t littelmann_path.py
**********************************************************************
True
Got:
False
**********************************************************************
File "littelmann_path.py", line 693, in
sage.combinat.crystals.littelmann_path.CrystalOfProjectedLevelZeroLSPaths.one_dimensional_configuration_sum
Failed example:
T.one_dimensional_configuration_sum() ==
LS.one_dimensional_configuration_sum()
Expected:
True
Got:
False
**********************************************************************
File "littelmann_path.py", line 701, in
sage.combinat.crystals.littelmann_path.CrystalOfProjectedLevelZeroLSPaths.one_dimensional_configuration_sum
Failed example:
T.one_dimensional_configuration_sum() ==
LS.one_dimensional_configuration_sum()
Expected:
True
Got:
False
**********************************************************************
}}}
It would be good not to change the existing functionality in
tensor_products.py!
Anne
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/13872#comment:42>
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.
