#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 | 295d784db0ae24bed97ed7b4d3777df9dbd652c2
Branch: u/stumpc5/20402 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: #11187 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:30 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.
Well, my interpretation of Christian's first comment was this was a
property of the realization of the group, not of the group itself. So the
group's `is_crystallographic` should just call that of its Coxeter
type/matrix.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20402#comment:38>
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.
