I agree, which is why I supported making some sort of
canonical_comparison method for output, and then using <= for
subgroup.

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:36 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Following on from Nick's point, I cannot imagine that users will want
> or expect to sort a list of groups except possibly by some criterion
> provided by the user (e.g. size of the group, or something).  But
> apart from that we need to be able to have a default sorting or more
> or less anything in Sage so that we can have consistent output where
> possible and meaningful.
>
> John
>
> 2008/5/23 David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> I agree with Nick and John.
>>
>> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> During the last bug day, I found several tickets related to
>>> inconsistencies in abelian groups. I think I've fixed the circular
>>> logic, etc. causing the problems in the patch included in #1284.
>>> However, there is a difference of opinion on notation that I need to
>>> ask about here.
>>>
>>> Q: Should the output of
>>> sage: G <= H
>>> for G and H abelian groups be whether G is a subgroup of H?
>>>
>>> I know the answer seems simple, but here's why you might want to
>>> answer no (William suggested this to me). If you have a list of
>>> abelian groups L = [G1,...,Gn], and you want to quickly sort it, if
>>> you do sorted(L), you may not get back what you are expecting, since
>>> the subgroup ordering on abelian groups isn't linear.
>>>
>>> gfurnish proposes the alternative sorted(L,
>>> cmp=canonical_ab_group_cmp), with G <= H returning whether G is a
>>> subgroup of H. I think I favor this approach.
>>>
>>> The other option is G.is_subgroup(H).
>>> >
>>>
>>
>> >
>>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to