On Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:44:19 AM UTC-7, jason wrote:
>
> Rob Beezer, what do you think?
>
>
Well, my first thought is that I am glad you and Volker are getting to the
bottom of this. I knew scalars were only working "on the wrong side," but
I'd been under the (mistaken) impression thi
On 11/05/2012 05:05 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Very nice!
>
> In the spirit of Python [1], "There should be one-- and preferably only
> one --obvious way to do it.", may I suggest that you pick one indexing
> convention (e.g., round or square brackets) and use that? I'd suggest
> using square
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 2012-11-05, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> +1. I've always been meaning to get back to this for ages, but just
>> haven't found the time. If we're going to make a big push to get this
>> in, I'll do what I can to help.
>
> I'd appre
I went through the Abelian groups and ported them over to the new Parent.
Together with some cleanups to whatever I came across in the process. This
is in
http://trac.sagemath.org/13687
Since it is a pretty big patch I would appreciate if somebody could review
it before conflicting stuff start
Hi Robert,
On 2012-11-05, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> +1. I've always been meaning to get back to this for ages, but just
> haven't found the time. If we're going to make a big push to get this
> in, I'll do what I can to help.
I'd appreciate your support!
> For testing, I would propose we manuall
On 11/5/12 3:52 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 11/05/12 12:40, Jason Grout wrote:
On 11/4/12 11:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I'm playing around with different ways to create collections of symbolic
variables. I though it would be nice to be able to chain subscripts,
e.g.,
sage: x[1][2]
On 11/05/12 12:40, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 11/4/12 11:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> I'm playing around with different ways to create collections of symbolic
>> variables. I though it would be nice to be able to chain subscripts,
>> e.g.,
>>
>>sage: x[1][2]
>>x12
>>sage: latex(x[1][2
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Francois Bissey
wrote:
> On 04/11/12 21:36, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> On 2012-11-04 01:23, Francois Bissey wrote:
>>> But nevertheless we have to just bit the bullet, do the best we can
>>> and fix things as they become apparent. We cannot stop moving forward
>>> bec
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
> On 2012-11-04, mmarco wrote:
>> I don't know if this is the right place and time to ask this: what
>> about morphisms for Parent with generators? I mean, in some cases, you
>> can define a morphism just by passing a list with the i
I think that, at some point, the framework should be aware of the
internal operations in the corresponding parent. I mean: if we are
talking about algebras, the expression of an element in terms of the
generators will include products, sums, and multiplication by scalars.
If we are talking about a
On 11/4/12 11:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I'm playing around with different ways to create collections of symbolic
variables. I though it would be nice to be able to chain subscripts, e.g.,
sage: x[1][2]
x12
sage: latex(x[1][2])
x_{1}_{2}
Why not do:
x[1,2]
to save typing and
Hi Marco,
On 2012-11-04, mmarco wrote:
> I don't know if this is the right place and time to ask this: what
> about morphisms for Parent with generators? I mean, in some cases, you
> can define a morphism just by passing a list with the images of the
> generators to .hom() But apparentñy, it has
12 matches
Mail list logo
