#20402: Make subword complexes compatible with real reflection groups
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: stumpc5 | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.2
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: reflection group, | Merged in:
coxeter group, subword complex, | Reviewers:
days80 | Work issues:
Authors: Christian Stump | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | 283ccf598079150e16406adc6a5a55b519f8ec26
Branch: u/stumpc5/20402 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: #11187 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:27 stumpc5]:
> How could crystallographic-ness being different for the group and for
its Coxeter type ? See Section 2.8 in Humphreys Coxeter group book for a
"proof" that the two are the same.
I guess that's Travis's point: mathematically, they two should be the
same. If there are two methods implementing this fact, then we need to
make sure that they remain consistent.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20402#comment:30>
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
