> i guess the actual issue is that groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic(10) produces a > ring, not a group, hence the confusion: > > sage: G = groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic(10) > sage: G in Groups() > False
I really love the fact that groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic(10) is "not a group" > I am not sure we have to pollute rings with various *_cayley_graph in > order to work around a wrong pointer lazily introduced in the groups.misc > catalog (#15369). Makes sense too. What should it be replaced with? > confusion. Note that it is currently not used within Sage source code, > except a single doctest in categories/additive_magmas.py. heyheyhey, whether or not it is used in Sage's own source code, we must have a one-liner for a cyclic additive group. > Also, the distinction between "additive" and "mutiplicative" for groups > (which by definition have only one law) looks weird. In paricular, we > could not have a uniform name for the neutral element. +1 > Just in case, note that for multiplication in rings, you can already do: > > sage: IntegerModRing(10).unit_group().cayley_graph() Whaaaaaat? Unit group? Is that standard terminology? What's wrong with `.additive_group()` ? I couldn't have guessed that. Nathann -- 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.
