#10527: Implementation of quiver mutation type
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
       Reporter:  stumpc5                      |         Owner:  sage-combinat
           Type:  enhancement                  |        Status:  needs_review 
       Priority:  major                        |     Milestone:  sage-5.3     
      Component:  combinatorics                |    Resolution:               
       Keywords:  quiver mutation type days38  |   Work issues:               
Report Upstream:  N/A                          |     Reviewers:  Hugh Thomas  
        Authors:  Christian Stump              |     Merged in:               
   Dependencies:                               |      Stopgaps:               
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------

Comment (by hthomas):

 Sorry for the delay.  I still had a bit of mathematical review to do.  I
 corrected one significant error, in the calculation of duals for non-
 simply-laced elliptics (though I can't claim a lot of credit for having
 done so, since it was an error I had introduced myself at an
 earlierstage).

 Types B,2,1 and B,2,-1 are now aliases for CC,2,1 (=C,2,1) and BB,2,1
 (=C,2,-1).  (I.e., the affine types associated to B,2).  Formerly this
 produced an error.

 I fiddled a little bit with phrasing in the documentation.

 I made the titles referred to in the class_size method agree with the
 articles being referred to.

 **

 There is a mention in the documentation of "class_size" that the formulas
 for affine B and affine C
 have been proved, but the proof is unpublished.  In the code, though, it
 says that the formulas are not proved.  This should be corrected to be
 consistent.  I didn't do it myself because I wasn't completely clear which
 formulas it was being claimed had been proved: affine C and its dual
 (which is not affine B) or affine C and affine B (and their duals) or just
 affine C and affine B.

 I think I see that the elements of a class and its dual class are
 naturally in bijective correspondence in acyclic types, but it's not
 obvious
 to me outside that setting (though that's all that matters here).

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10527#comment:84>
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.

Reply via email to