On 2014-09-10, Nils Bruin <nbr...@sfu.ca> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:38:50 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote: >> >> sage: Permutation([0,1,2]) >> > > aw shoot. The problem is there already, because we're defining permutations > by *ordered list of images* rather than as a composition of cycles. That > means the base actually is important right from the start. Can't we just > define permutations as a composition of cycles instead? Then we indeed do > not have to worry about whether they're 0 or 1 based.
There seems to be a community of people in sage-combinat who don't multiply permutations in the maths they do. They don't care about cyclic structure that much. For them permutations are just combinatial objects... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
