#13700: fix non-crystallographic "example" of Dynkin diagram
-----------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Reporter: hthomas | Owner: sage-
| combinat
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: root system, Dynkin diagram | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-----------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
I think the result is mathematically correct. But I see the point of
returning something more typical. This is the outcome of the tension
between the two use cases of this method:
- Providing something typical / well known for the user
- Providing something generic enough, in particular for running tests.
If I checked correctly, this method is barely used. So we don't have to
worry about backward compatibility. Here is a suggestion:
{{{
sage: DynkinDiagram_class.an_instance()
... returns a Dynkin diagram of type C3 ...
sage: DynkinDiagram_class.an_instance(finite=False)
... returns the current output ...
}}}
Any variant for the name of the argument is welcome.
For the Dynkin diagram of type C3, we have two options: either return
DynkinDiagram(["C",3]), or build by hand the same Dynkin diagram (again
for a bit more genericity). I don't have an opinion on this.
Cheers,
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/13700#comment:9>
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.
