Most of this discussion is about cases where sage thinks it is acting on a bigger set than the user wants it to. I'll just point out bug 8963
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8963 where sage has the reverse problem: it thinks that the set that is being acted on is smaller. For example, it correctly computes that the row stabilizer group of the tableau [[1,2],[3]] is a group with two elements generated by the transposition (1,2), but it thinks that this group is acting on the set {1, 2} rather than the set {1, 2, 3}, and this leads to difficulties. That bug has a patch that fixes this particular problem, but enhancing sage to know about the set that a permutation group acts on sounds like a good idea. Dan -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
