Dear category fans,
One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new
category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital.
This is a call for suggestions and votes for a good name for it.
- ``Algebras``: that's wikipedia's choice [1]. However using
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 03:21:34PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new
category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital.
This is a call for suggestions and votes for a good name for it.
On a similar note:
Hey Nicolas,
For the category of non-unital rings, how about Rngs? (I'm half joking.)
Somewhat more serious, GeneralAlgebras/GeneralRings? I think overall we
should be consistent between rings and algebras. On the math side of
things, doesn't a ring in general has to be distributive; if so,
Hi,
Oops, per popular request, let me be a bit more specific:
what is CAT complexity
Constant Amortized Time; roughly speaking this means that, in average,
each step of the iteration takes a constant amount of time:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/200384/constant-amortized-time
In
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 06:47:12AM -0700, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
For the category of non-unital rings, how about Rngs? (I'm half joking.)
Actually that joke, for good or bad, is what's already been
implemented in successively Axiom, MuPAD, and Sage :-) They even had
Rigs. And Rgs.
But
On 7/3/13 6:21 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Dear category fans,
One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new
category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital.
This is a call for suggestions and votes for a good name for it.
-
I would like to chime in on what Anne said. I would rather see
that Tableau and Tableaux be able to handle skew-tableaux
than copy-paste the tableaux functions into skew-tableaux.
There is functionality in SkewTableau which is not in Tableau
(cells_by_content, entries_by_content) and vice versa.
Le mercredi 3 juillet 2013 01:07:35 UTC+2, rjf a écrit :
Your statement then translates to RPBSRPN(x^2) = abs(x) .
But then if it ir R+--R+, the abs() is unnecessary, and RPBSRPN(x^2) =
x.
No, the abs is necessary: consider the following function:
f : R -- R+, x |-- RPBSRPN(x^2)
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 6:00:41 AM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I'm here at the Sage-GIT workshop and it's very clear that the switch to
GIT is happening.
Sorry for jumping in late, but I have only recently started using Sage, and
I might want to contribute some smaller patches in
After all his hard and good work Jeroen definitely deservers this!
Gefeliciteerd Jeroen!
Le vendredi 28 juin 2013 12:47:31 UTC+2, Nicolas M. Thiéry a écrit :
+lots on behalf of the Sage-Combinat community. It's been so helpful
to have someone super competent, timely, and rigorous like you!
Hell everybody !!!
There is a very ugly memory leak in Sage's graphs, and I have no idea of
how it should be hunted. It is (unfortunately) very easy to produce :
sage: get_memory_usage()
956.87890625
sage: graphs.CompleteGraph(700)
Complete graph: Graph on 700 vertices
sage:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 2:32:14 PM UTC+2, Nathann Cohen wrote:
Hell everybody !!!
There is a very ugly memory leak in Sage's graphs, and I have no idea of
how it should be hunted. It is (unfortunately) very easy to produce :
sage: get_memory_usage()
956.87890625
sage:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:14:48PM +, Simon King wrote:
Well, you need to construct polynomial rings if you want to
construct finite fields (non-prime at least). I don't think there's a
good way to avoid it.
Sure. But do we -- and do we need to -- construct any finite field at
startup?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 04:52:18PM -0700, Matthieu Deneufchâtel wrote:
I try to implement the Poincare-Birkhoff-Witt basis of the free algebra.
I defined the elements of this basis and a function which gives the
expansion of an element of the free algebra on this basis; actually, it
Ahaahhahah ! You are totally right ! I had totally forgotten things like
'_', which I never use but returns the previous result:-)
sage: def test():
: d = graphs.CompleteGraph(1000)
: return 1
:
sage: get_memory_usage()
1176.9765625
sage: [test() for x in range(10)]
Dear category fans,
One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new
category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital.
This is a call for suggestions and votes for a good name for it.
- ``Algebras``: that's wikipedia's choice [1]. However using
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 03:21:34PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new
category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital.
This is a call for suggestions and votes for a good name for it.
On a similar note:
Hey Nicolas,
For the category of non-unital rings, how about Rngs? (I'm half joking.)
Somewhat more serious, GeneralAlgebras/GeneralRings? I think overall we
should be consistent between rings and algebras. On the math side of
things, doesn't a ring in general has to be distributive; if so,
On 2013-07-03, Nicolas M. Thiery nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:14:48PM +, Simon King wrote:
Well, you need to construct polynomial rings if you want to
construct finite fields (non-prime at least). I don't think there's a
good way to avoid it.
Sure. But
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 06:47:12AM -0700, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
For the category of non-unital rings, how about Rngs? (I'm half joking.)
Actually that joke, for good or bad, is what's already been
implemented in successively Axiom, MuPAD, and Sage :-) They even had
Rigs. And Rgs.
But
Le 03/07/2013 15:38, Nicolas M. Thiery a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 03:21:34PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new
category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital.
This is a call for suggestions and
On Friday, June 28, 2013 11:14:55 AM UTC-4, rjf wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2013 5:09:49 AM UTC-7, Joris Vankerschaver wrote:
Hi all,
Is there something I can do to avoid this?
I tried this in Maxima 5.25.1 and 5.28.02
You can avoid this problem by just using one of
Hi,
while Felix spends his summer trying to modify sage's architecture for a
better integration in distributions, I'm still playing with the little
problems.
My little script which makes sage think it compiled things while it
really gets the system packages gives the following results:
-
See http://wstein.org/edu/2012/1062/projects/final/miloshevich-nason/ for
now-fairly-old status update. Not that we don't have enough to worry about
with a putative transition to git etc., but thought I'd ask whether this
can be updated. For instance, Sympy (or at least one of its tarballs)
Le 03/07/2013 16:50, kcrisman a écrit :
See http://wstein.org/edu/2012/1062/projects/final/miloshevich-nason/
for now-fairly-old status update. Not that we don't have enough to
worry about with a putative transition to git etc., but thought I'd ask
whether this can be updated. For instance,
Do we have a wiki page with more up-to-date overview? If not it would be
nice to create one...
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 10:50:39 AM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote:
See http://wstein.org/edu/2012/1062/projects/final/miloshevich-nason/ for
now-fairly-old status update. Not that we don't have enough
Le 03/07/2013 17:01, Volker Braun a écrit :
Do we have a wiki page with more up-to-date overview? If not it would be
nice to create one...
Or a trac ticket, if one wants to create small subtasks.
Snark on #sagemath
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 7/2/2013 1:51 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
I agree that this is a usability wart... though really I think the whole
idea of installing further components while Sage is running is a bad
design choice. For example, if you end up modifying shared libraries
that are currently mmaped then bad things
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 11:06:02 AM UTC-4, Ursula wrote:
So why doesn't TOPCOM install with Sage by default?
Its a relatively large package for relatively small feature (regularity
testing of generated triangulations and finding triangulations that are not
connected by flips to the
On 7/3/13 6:21 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Dear category fans,
One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new
category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital.
This is a call for suggestions and votes for a good name for it.
- ``Algebras``:
Hi!
On 2013-07-03, anne1.schill...@gmail.com anne1.schill...@gmail.com wrote:
MagmaticAlgebras or perhaps AlgebrasOverMagmas or Magma-Algebras (in analogy
to an
R-module) seems to be what you want?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma_%28algebra%29
Otherwise, Travis' suggestion of
Hi Simon,
I don't really like magma algebra or magmatic algebra, but that's
mainly because
I never heard anyone using this notion before. I'd rather describe an
algebra as a
module over an appropriate operade than call it magma algebra.
What I'd prefer is very simple: Just say algebra
32 matches
Mail list logo
