That would be an improvement, but still wouldn't be a solution.
At some point, we have to live with the fact that comparison in finitely
presented groups will only work reliably if we are lucky. What we can do is
try to make the set of "lucky" groups bigger. And at some point that will
come at
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 5:02:43 AM UTC-7, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> important ingredient: there is no normal form in general! This is an
> undecidable problem... there is no algorithm that takes as input a
> presentation and outputs whether this group has more than one element.
>
> Though, the
Ups, I emailed my answer to Nathan and now I am no longer in my office so I
have no access to it. Can you please paste it here?
--
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
important ingredient: there is no normal form in general! This is an
undecidable problem... there is no algorithm that takes as input a
presentation and outputs whether this group has more than one element.
Though, there are some results about specific presentations (e.g. only
one relation, sm
(this is a new independent thread for a sub-conversation of the
Element.__hash__ thread)
> Bottom line: the hash bug is not really the reason why Cayley graphs are
> broken. Maybe there is some little examples where the Cayley graph is
> computed wrong with the current hash and gets correctly comp
