Hi David On May 19, 5:51 pm, David Joyner <wdjoy...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. you can coerce the coefficients to GF(3)
Can I? The generators are still distinct in GF(3), but I might lose elements when I take products (maybe not in this case, I am thinking about the general problem for an arbitrary Weyl group). Wouldn't do that unless I have a way to determine the finite field in which things still are what they should. > 2. You can try G1 = gap(G) and > G2 = gap(SymmetricGroup(4)) > and G1.IsomorphismGroups(G2): > ..... ..... > > sage: G1.IsomorphismGroups(G2) > > CompositionMapping( GroupGeneralMappingByImages( SymmetricGroup( > [ 1 .. 4 ] ), SymmetricGroup( [ 1 .. 4 ] ), [ (1,3,2,4), (1,2,3,4) ], > [ (1,2,3,4), (1,4,2,3) ] ), <action isomorphism> ) That might actually work, but the output is a bit bizarre. Can I see from there what are the images of my generators, or at least turn the output into a "true/false" boolean? Thanks for your answer. Javier --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
