#15300: Weyl and Clifford Algebras
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: tscrim | Owner: tscrim
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: algebra | Resolution:
Keywords: days54 | Merged in:
Authors: Travis Scrimshaw | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
public/algebras/weyl_clifford-15300| b47af6ae9f8dd1e6d870ec986f81fb6913d12e16
Dependencies: #16037 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:145 darij]:
> Is this a standard situation in Sage that the order of the `gens` of an
algebra/group/whatever cannot be trusted? This sounds like another reason
to rewrite that method, and deserves its meta-ticket.
It's not the order of `gens` (which by specs return a tuple), but instead
that of `algebra_generators` (or similar) that returns a `Family` (by
specs) which takes a `dict` as input. So the question becomes do we care
about the ordering of the algebra generators? For me, the answer is no
except for what's needed by `inject_variables`, but this is handled by
`gens`.
Now it is possible to construct the data with a fixed input order by
`Family(index_set, function)`, and I wouldn't be too opposed to doing
things this way. It gives a slight code smell to me, but it would probably
be less surprising to a user...?
Thoughts?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15300#comment:146>
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.
