On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, William Stein wrote:
On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Under the way I've implemented this, the
action on the list [1,...,n] is trivially
isomorphic to the group structure. You
seem to be using a left-action which
^^^
I am using a left
It looks to me as though there are some crossed wires here. The
permutation is acting on *any* list of length 5 by permuting the
indices of the elements (taken as 1..5 rather than python-standard
0..4 but still). In the example you are using the entries in the
list happen to also be the
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 07:45:34AM -0700, mabshoff wrote:
mabshoff: Are you sure you ran doc-tests with the *patched* version of
sage?
Because that doc-test wasn't even in the vanilla version.
Everything is possible, but I am fairly sure that the behavior of the
doctests only
Now we are getting somewhere, maybe. I'm thinking of the
natural (to me!) right action and you're thinking
of the left action got by inverting the permutation and acting
in the natural way :-).
I guess I just don't think permutation (which are functions) should
act on the left. It's
On Nov 2, 12:45 pm, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 02 November 2007 00:17, mabshoff wrote:
#1032: Latex'ing variable names is more robust and consistent (Joel
Mohler) - this one was actually backed out again - see the ticket for
comment
It's possible that I'm
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, William Stein wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:08:40 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, William Stein wrote:
On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Under the way I've implemented this, the
action on the list [1,...,n] is trivially
isomorphic to the group
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:24:53 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I just don't think permutation (which are functions) should
act on the left. It's repulsive to me.I guess there's just
not much more to say than that.
Ok. I don't think that's a very good attitude to enforce, since a
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:08:40 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, William Stein wrote:
On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Under the way I've implemented this, the
action on the list [1,...,n] is trivially
isomorphic to the group structure. You
seem to be using a left-action which
A short outlook:
People on OpenSuSE 10.2 should know the following:
[09:33] Syzygy- Hmph. I cannot get yast to tell me what the g77-
package is named. *grmbl*
[09:33] mabshoff Which SuSE release?
[09:34] mabshoff You should probably install gfortran
[09:34] mabshoff 10.3 no longer ships g77 or
On Friday 02 November 2007 10:45, mabshoff wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:45 pm, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everything is possible, but I am fairly sure that the behavior of the
doctests only changes if the patch made it in. Can you check that your
patch applied against rc1 passes doctests?
William Stein wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:24:53 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I just don't think permutation (which are functions) should
act on the left. It's repulsive to me.I guess there's just
not much more to say than that.
Ok. I don't think that's a very good attitude
On Nov 2, 7:39 pm, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 02 November 2007 10:45, mabshoff wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:45 pm, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everything is possible, but I am fairly sure that the behavior of the
doctests only changes if the patch made it in.
On Friday 02 November 2007 15:38, mabshoff wrote:
The patch applied against rc1 passes with flying colors. You need to use
the second bundle on the ticket since the first bundle is already in (but
backed out). Maybe there is a correct way to back out the back out, but
I don't know it.
On Nov 3, 12:46 am, Joel B. Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 02 November 2007 15:38, mabshoff wrote:
The patch applied against rc1 passes with flying colors. You need to use
the second bundle on the ticket since the first bundle is already in (but
backed out). Maybe there
The expected output is incorrect; the actual output is correct.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, mabshoff wrote:
I have released 2.8.11.rc1 (sorry, I skipped rc0, by the time I
realized the problem I had already called it rc1 in trac) at
On Nov 2, 5:29 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello boothby,
The expected output is incorrect; the actual output is correct.
Okay, I am fixing the doctest then.
We are planning an rc2 in a couple hours if William and I get it to
compile on 10.5 without the need for manual interaction. We are
On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The expected output is incorrect; the actual output is correct.
From irc:
20:24 mabshoff Sucks, but also re #750:
20:24 mabshoff File permgroup_element.py, line 323:
20:24 mabshoff sage: g([0,1,2,3,4])
20:24 mabshoff Expected:
In particular, how does applying (1,2,3)(4,5) to [0,1,2,3,4]
result in what you claim, i.e., in [1, 2, 0, 4, 3]?
It should either be an error, or maybe:
[2,0,1,3,4]
if say (1,2,3)(4,5) sends the first entry, i.e., 0th position
to the 1st, the 1st to 2nd, etc,
That's what is going on --
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, William Stein wrote:
On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, how does applying (1,2,3)(4,5) to [0,1,2,3,4]
result in what you claim, i.e., in [1, 2, 0, 4, 3]?
It should either be an error, or maybe:
[2,0,1,3,4]
if say (1,2,3)(4,5)
On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Under the way I've implemented this, the
action on the list [1,...,n] is trivially
isomorphic to the group structure. You
seem to be using a left-action which
^^^
I am using a left action.
doesn't really go well with the notation
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, William Stein wrote:
Applying the permutation (1,2,3)(4,5) to [0,1,2,3,4]
should either move the entry in position 1 (which happens
to be called 0) to position 2, so that the output looks like
[*,0,*,*,*]
or if we do some weird 1-based thing, it would always
fix
21 matches
Mail list logo
