#18350: Adams operator
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: elixyre | Owner:
Type: task | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.7
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jean-Baptiste | Reviewers:
Priez | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | fc8726a50725479d84aa9a07f55e28e1f879880a
u/elixyre/ticket/18350 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:14 jhpalmieri]:
> Another non-discoverable-via-tab-completion way: have `coproduct` take
an optional argument `n` (default 1) and then `a.coproduct(n)` will return
the n-fold coproduct.
I think this would be a good solution. For the most part, we don't
implement a `coproduct()`, but use the general one with a
`coproduct_on_basis` (in fact, I don't know of a place where we have a
custom `coproduct`). So it will be discoverable using code inspection.
I thought of `coproduct_power` by thinking of it as a module morphism
which was repeatedly applied, but I see your point. Although for that we'd
only have the ambiguity for bialgebras, right? Anyways `coproduct_nfold`
would be acceptable to me, and I think `iterated_coproduct` is also
something somewhat natural and is acceptable.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18350#comment:15>
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.
