#11546: Implementation of energy function for crystals
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: aschilling | Owner: sage-combinat
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.7.2
Component: combinatorics | Keywords: energy, crystals
Work_issues: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Author: Anne Schilling
Merged: | Dependencies:
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Changes (by sdenton):
* status: needs_review => needs_info
Comment:
1) Funny problem with the classical crystal command, unrelated to patch?
K.classical_decomposition seems to work fine, though.
{{{
sage: K = KirillovReshetikhinCrystal(['A',2,1],2,1)
sage: Kc=K.classical_crystal()
sage: Kc
ERROR: An unexpected error occurred while tokenizing input
The following traceback may be corrupted or invalid
The error message is: ('EOF in multi-line statement', (396, 0))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AttributeError Traceback (most recent call
last)
....
AttributeError: 'int' object has no attribute 'value'
}}}
2) small request... Could there be a 'level' function on KR crystals? It
looks like this would be as easy as wrapping the assertion in the energy
function in a separate function, and would give a natural response to the
user when the 'All crystals in the tensor product need to be perfect of
the same level' assertion error comes up.
3) The 'list' option removed from the 'to_highest_weight' functions looks
like it was a bit of extraneous code, so this is good!
I'm a little concerned though, because the old way returned:
{{{
return self.to_highest_weight(list = list + [i], index_set =
index_set)
}}}
While the new returns:
{{{
hw = self.to_highest_weight(index_set = index_set)
return [hw[0], [i] + hw[1]]
}}}
It looks like the new 'i' is being added to opposite ends of the list in
these two cases; is this consistent one way or the other across the code-
base?
This reminds me of a functionality extension I had thought would be nice
at one point, namely being able to feed a list to the 'e' and 'f'
functions instead of just a single letter. It would both extend the
functionality a bit and establish a convention for which way this 'list'
should be applied!
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11546#comment:4>
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
