#18453: Infinite affine crystals should use extended weight lattice
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: bump | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: crystals | Merged in:
Authors: Ben Salisbury, | Reviewers:
Anne Schilling, Travis Scrimshaw | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 7963ea6a64dc4bd1d623288fbb6702e11beae0dc
public/crystal/18453 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:16 nthiery]:
> Replying to [comment:13 tscrim]:
> > However I will fix the RC code and test a bunch of the different
models in affine type
>
> Just random thoughts: will failure be caught by TestSuite? If not could
there be new _test methods catching the issue?
I don't think we could write a `TestSuite` check for this (at least for
the highest weight crystals) as the branching rule I mentioned above is
valid (and so having the weights in the non-extended weight lattice still
makes sense, unless I'm misunderstanding something about U,,q,,'('''g''')
inside of U,,q,,('''g''')).
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18453#comment:18>
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.
