#15916: Tensors on free modules of finite rank
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: egourgoulhon | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: linear algebra | Resolution:
Keywords: free module, | Merged in:
tensor, tensor product | Reviewers:
Authors: Eric Gourgoulhon, | Work issues:
Michal Bejger | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | d8f518ff48c8be2ea73f2b51e067af9e6c87b4bf
Branch: | Stopgaps:
u/egourgoulhon/tensor_modules |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by egourgoulhon):
Replying to [comment:23 tscrim]:
> What I generally do is put all of the important info in the class
docstring, like the `INPUT` block and examples showing use-cases. In the
`__init__` method, it is just creating a common example `X` and doing
`TestSuite(X).run()` (and possibly repeating for some boarder cases).
>
Thanks to you and Volker for your advices.
> Also what Volker is alluding to is that all methods, including
underscore ones, must have some doctest.
>
OK got it. Will modify the code accordingly.
> Some quick comments/questions:
>
> - Please remove the autogenerated files from git tracking (as they will
be autogenerated :p).
OK.
> - The imports from `tensor/modules` I feel like should be done using
`tensor/all.py` rather than `all.py` (at the source root).
Yes, this would be more consistent with the directory structure.
> - I'm wondering if the `tensor/modules` doc should be built along with
the `tensor` doc (rather than it's own separate thing) as `tensor` is
small to begin with. However, I don't think there's any drawbacks to
having it be separate since it's (essentially) disjoint from the other
doc.
Actually the current content of `tensor` (algebra of differential forms
defined on a coordinate patch of R^n^) pertains more to smooth manifolds
than to tensor modules over arbitrary commutative rings.
> - Is there anything I can do with or you need from #15726? I'd like to
make these compatible as much as possible.
Sure! There is clearly some overlap between the two and we should discuss
this further. For instance, once a basis is chosen, a tensor from this
ticket should be converted into an element of the tensor algebra of
#15726. Let us keep in touch about this.
> - +1 to having a class for indices (once there is clear a need for it).
>
> I really like the pictures on the Sage manifolds website and think this
will be a great addition to Sage. Unfortunately I don't have time right
now to do much of a review.
>
> Best,[[BR]]
> Travis
>
> PS - You might also be interested in #9439.
Yes this has clearly some connections with !SageManifolds, as well as
#10132 (now integrated into Sage).
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15916#comment:24>
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/d/optout.
