Hi,
I need to do a bit of linear algebra in Gelfand-Zetlin subalgebra of
SymmetricGroupAlgebra. While its multiplicative generators, a.k.a
Jucys-Murphy elements, are available
(e.g. SymmetricGroupAlgebra(QQ,3).QS3.jucys_murphy(3))
is there a way to get a basis of this subalgebra?
I guess it might
Christian and Nicolas,
I pushed trac_12774-coxeter-ms.patch.
I moved it way up the queue and
had no problems applying the rest of the queue.
I temporarily broke some rules for putting the patch that high on the queue.
E.g., I have a trac ticket but haven't put a version of the patch
on trac just
Christian and Nicolas,
Is the following a decent way to determine whether "element" is an element
of a Weyl group of a given Cartan type?
hasattr(element, "domain") and hasattr(element.domain(), "cartan_type")
and element.domain().cartan_type() == cartan_type
E.g. is this likely to change or are
Arrgh, my previous question obviously didn't make sense.
I need to call the Coxeter group method something different
like reflection_inversions (and the solution becomes trivial)
or someone needs to tell me how to tell python not to run over
the Coxeter group method (so the method is actually avai
Hi Mark,
If I understand correctly, you can you getattr, see
getattr(object, name[, default]) -> value
Get a named attribute from an object; getattr(x, 'y') is equivalent to
x.y. When a default argument is given, it is returned when the
attribute doesn't exist; without it, an exc
Nicolas,
But I want the Weyl group version to use the output of the
Coxeter version, which will be cached,
and then make the (co)root variants if
needed. How do I do that syntactically without
running over the Coxeter version?
--Mark
>> Since WeylGroups has CoxeterGroups as a super category, to
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:03:59PM +0200, Christian Stump wrote:
> Since WeylGroups has CoxeterGroups as a super category, to me it seems
> be perfectly reasonable to name both methods "inversions", The one
> from WeylGroups then overwrite the one from CoxeterGroups
Indeed.
As for usual inheritan
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:43:08PM +0200, Christian Stump wrote:
> Just push it, if that doesn't create some conflict. Then I can see
> what you mean above.
+1
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil"
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because yo
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:09:55PM -0400, msh...@math.vt.edu wrote:
> How does one make the subclass declaration dynamically?
See sage.structure.dynamic_class.dynamic_class. You can do things like
changing the class of the object under construction:
def __init__(self):
...
Christian,
> Since WeylGroups has CoxeterGroups as a super category, to me it seems
> be perfectly reasonable to name both methods "inversions", The one
> from WeylGroups then overwrite the one from CoxeterGroups (or does it
> happen to be the other way round, Nicolas?). To avoid confusion, maybe
> Indeed, in trac_12774-coxeter-ms.patch, there is already a Coxeter group
> element method which returns inversions in reflection form:
>
> sage: W = WeylGroup(['A',2],prefix="s")
> sage: w = W.from_reduced_word([1,2,1])
> sage: w.length_decreasing_reflections_right()
> [s1, s1*s2*s1, s2]
>
> If e
Hi all,
> Jean Michel wrote:
>
>> The list of inversions, in my view, should preferably be a list
>> of reflections (which does not need the existence of roots and makes
>> sense for abstract Coxeter groups).
Indeed, in trac_12774-coxeter-ms.patch, there is already a Coxeter group
elemen
> I put my one rejected text hunk in a slightly different place
> (not quite at the very bottom)
I don't understand what you mean -- into another patch below in the
queue or somewhere else in the py file?
> May I push my changes to the sage-combinat server?
> I will wait until I have an affirmati
> In other words, something like this:
>
> sage: w.inversions()
> [alpha[1], alpha[1] + alpha[2], alpha[2]]
>
> sage: w.inversions(reflections=True)
> [s1,s1*s2*s1,s2]
+1
what was again the point of having a list rather than a set?
Christian
--
You received this message because you are subscri
> Frederic,
>
> I pushed a patch (coxeter_ms.patch) to the sage-combinat server.
>
> Now you should get
>
> sage: W=WeylGroup(['A',2])
> sage: w=W.from_reduced_word([1,2,1])
> sage: w.inversions()
> [alpha[1], alpha[1] + alpha[2], alpha[2]]
>
> which is much nicer.
>
> --Mark
Jean Michel wro
Simon,
> class Foo(Bar):
> def __init__(self, *args):
>
> Bar.__init__(self, *args)
Duh. I forgot to explicitly declare Foo as a subclass of Bar.
I have little object-oriented programming experience, having
wasted my misspent youth on innumerable unreadable
one-line Mathematic
Hi!
On 2012-03-29, msh...@math.vt.edu wrote:
> More seriously for me at the moment,
> there is type enforcement going on somewhere.
> If __init__ is called with a custom class,
> failure occurs because the actual class instance is not received.
I am puzzled.
How do you attempt to inherit from t
Christian and Nicolas,
I put my one rejected text hunk in a slightly different place
(not quite at the very bottom)
and the rest of the queue applies! Zero doctest failures at my patch.
Only a few when the entire queue is applied, and I saw all of these
same failures when my patch was the last to
Hi!
If someone is interested: I rebased my patch from #8972 relative to
sage-5.0.beta10.
It fixes various bugs, tends to improve timings, and needs review (and
still needs the test suite to be run...).
Cheers,
Simon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Nicolas,
> Instead, we need a mantra for requesting what the class is for
> (uni/multi)variate polynomial rings in over ...
>
> As a temporary measure, one could do:
>
> def parent_class_of_multivariate_polynomial_ring(K):
> return type(PolynomialRing(K,['x','y']))
There are additional
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:30:14AM +, Simon King wrote:
> > «change the status of the ticket to *needs review* and change the milestone
> > to sage-duplictate/invalid/wontfix.
> > You should also comment on the ticket, explaining why it should be closed.»
>
> Really "needs review"?? I was tol
Hi all!
On 2012-03-28, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:04:44AM -0700, Mark Shimozono wrote:
>> The fraction field of a Laurent polynomial ring S can't tell if one of
>> its elements is in S.
I recall that about two years ago I had opened a ticket on inversion and
fraction f
Hi Nicolas!
On 2012-03-29, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:01:26AM -0400, msh...@math.vt.edu wrote:
>> I added the comment on #11122 but don't know how to change its
>> status to "already done" or whatever it should be.
>
> From:
> http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/trac
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:01:26AM -0400, msh...@math.vt.edu wrote:
> I added the comment on #11122 but don't know how to change its
> status to "already done" or whatever it should be.
From:
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/trac.html#reasons-to-invalidate-tickets
«change the status of the
24 matches
Mail list logo
