Anne Schilling writes:
> Hi!
>
> I just added a new patch on trac which implements the Schuetzenberger
> involution on both words and tableaux and also the promotion operator
> on tableaux of arbitrary shape:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10446
I found that it doesn't work for ar
Dear Dan,
On 3/27/11 6:27 PM, bump wrote:
I just added a new patch on trac which implements the Schuetzenberger
involution on both words and tableaux and also the promotion operator
on tableaux of arbitrary shape:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10446
I have the impression this is f
> I just added a new patch on trac which implements the Schuetzenberger
> involution on both words and tableaux and also the promotion operator
> on tableaux of arbitrary shape:
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10446
I have the impression this is for Type A only. But the Schutzenberge
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 01:33:59AM -0700, Anne Schilling wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation! Everything seems to work fine now.
> I gave a positive review on trac for the added features, perhaps
> someone else could do a technical review of the patch.
I'll try to handle the technical review (thou
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:00:37PM -0700, Simon King wrote:
> Anyway, I agree with you that my question should be answered in a
> practical way and can not really have a "categorical" answer. That's
> why I formulated "are free algebras and polynomial rings too
> different?" in my original question
Hi!
I just added a new patch on trac which implements the Schuetzenberger
involution on both words and tableaux and also the promotion operator
on tableaux of arbitrary shape:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10446
This was started during Sage Days 26 in Seattle last December with Erin
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the explanation! Everything seems to work fine now.
I gave a positive review on trac for the added features, perhaps
someone else could do a technical review of the patch.
Best,
Anne
On 3/26/11 11:11 PM, Simon King wrote:
Hi Anne,
On 27 Mrz., 00:39, Anne Schilling wrote
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:35:18PM -0700, Simon King wrote:
> On 27 Mrz., 08:11, Simon King wrote:
> > I guess, what I should do is to test at the beginning of the
> > groebner_basis method whether we have a field, and give a clear error
> > message. Also I should mention that restriction in the d
