Am Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 01:36:40 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Bruin:
>
> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:54:06 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:38:50 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>>>
>>> sage: Permutation([0,1,2])
>>>
>>
> In fact, one CAN see from this list whether the permutation is 0-based or
> 1-based, since every element from the domain must must occur exactly once,
> so
>
> Permutation([1,2,0]) is a cyclic permutation on the 3 element set {0,1,2}
> and Permutation([2,3,1]) is a cyclic permutation on {1,2,3}. So, in cycle
> notation, 0- or 1-based doesn't matter (unless you're explicit about
> domain, but then you should just be explicit about domain) and with
> enumerated-images notation you can distinguish the two. I guess the only
> point then is whether it's acceptable to have
>
> sage: Permutation([2,3,1])
> [0,2,3,1]
>
> (but really, we could just always suppress the printing of fixed initial
> and tail, in which case the printing problem goes away too).
>
Indeed. The only thing which I really really find annoying is the special
notation for circular permutations.
Martin
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
