Yo !
> Until all properties of graphs are known to Sage, you should then be
pushing
> to not have any graph in Sage.
...
Okay, when we have reached this level of non-communication there is nothing
to add.
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Hey Nathann,
> When all properties of cartesian products with respect to any structure
> will be known to Sage I agree with you, but in the meantime what we have is
> a method whose name is incorrect.
>
Until all properties of graphs are known to Sage, you should then be
pushing to not have
Yo !
>It does return a Cartesian product, but not without carrying as much
structure as you might expect. It doesn't make sense to me to rename this
-- as with other things in Sage, if it's not implemented, then you can
request it or go ahead and do so yourself. I don't believe in
>
> This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16718. I'll try to write a
> fix shortly.
This is ready for review.
Best,
Travis
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr
>
>
> Then perhaps it should be named "set_cartesian_product" until this is
> fixed ?
>
It does return a Cartesian product, but not without carrying as much
structure as you might expect. It doesn't make sense to me to rename this
-- as with other things in Sage, if it's not implemented, th
Hel !!
> Well, the question should be whether Sage supports Cartesian products.
Then perhaps it should be named "set_cartesian_product" until this is fixed
?
> This comes from CategoryObject and there's a TODO to refactor it out into
> the proper category, but that would need everyth
You've misunderstood me, by explicit_generators I mean group_generators(),
algebra_generators(), module_generators(), etc., i.e. being explicit about
what type of generators.
On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:18:37 PM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:05:49 PM UTC-4, Trav
On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:05:49 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
> Explicit is better than implicit to minimize the choices.
>
But adding "explicit_" in front of everything is just a typing exercise, it
does not convey any information. explicit_generators(),
explicit_ring_generators(), ex
It's a good reason why we should try to move away from gens(), as I
stated above. Explicit is better than implicit to minimize the choices.
It's not a matter of just "dealing with it".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubs
How is that related? I agree with Nicolas, gens() or generators() shall be
the most specific kind of generator. You can always have
whatever_generators() for generators of any kind of substructure in
addition.
On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:46:20 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
> On Wednesda
>
> On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:04:49 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
>> We do want to try and get away from the sometimes ambiguous gens() to
>> explicit_generators()
>>
>
> Unless you also envision an implicit_generators() that is a bad name.
> Generators are almost always involve choi
Some of the history of parents and generators is discussed here
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/3c0vPGOWWMI/ys5hYhhdp3sJ
On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:04:49 PM UTC-4, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
> We do want to try and get away from the sometimes ambiguous gens() to
> explicit_generato
Hey everyone,
If anybody asks you whether Sage supports groups, here is an answer :
>
Well, the question should be whether Sage supports Cartesian products.
Right now the answer is not really beyond sets because I don't think anyone
has wanted it (maybe there's some tickets on this...?). With #
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> William,
> you were not using Gac (essentially a tool to create dynamically
> loadable .so-extensions to Gap kernel, by compiling Gap, see e.g.
> http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~gap/Manuals/doc/htm/ref/CHAP003.htm#SECT007)
> in that wor
William,
you were not using Gac (essentially a tool to create dynamically
loadable .so-extensions to Gap kernel, by compiling Gap, see e.g.
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~gap/Manuals/doc/htm/ref/CHAP003.htm#SECT007)
in that work, did you?
I guess that using Gac one can make pretty much any G
Hi Mike,
On 14 March 2010 02:12, Mike OS wrote:
> I had concerns that posting on gap-from and gap-support
> might make the discussion to diffused and harder to keep track of.
> I dont have experience with discussion groups. What would you
> suggest?
OK, we'll see, so far indeed it's a bit prema
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>>> ... I would imagine Sage would have native
>>> implementations of permutation groups, matrix groups, etc. and call of to
>>> Gap for things like solving the word problem, but not for basic
>>> arithmetic
This was a question I was particu
On Mar 11, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mar 11, 2010, at 1:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
On Mar 11, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Mike OS wrote:
Thanks for all the comments, links on gap and Sage.
Rob, the two tracs on abelian grou
On Mar 11, 2010, at 1:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
On Mar 11, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Mike OS wrote:
Thanks for all the comments, links on gap and Sage.
Rob, the two tracs on abelian groups and unit groups of rings are
just what we were wond
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Mike OS wrote:
>
>> Thanks for all the comments, links on gap and Sage.
>> Rob, the two tracs on abelian groups and unit groups of rings are
>> just what we were wondering about. We'll look at them and see if
On Mar 11, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Mike OS wrote:
Thanks for all the comments, links on gap and Sage.
Rob, the two tracs on abelian groups and unit groups of rings are
just what we were wondering about. We'll look at them and see if we
can do something. Please do send the worksheet you mentioned o
Thanks for all the comments, links on gap and Sage.
Rob, the two tracs on abelian groups and unit groups of rings are
just what we were wondering about. We'll look at them and see if we
can do something. Please do send the worksheet you mentioned on unit
groups.
What was the difficulty with sub
PS. Also, please advertise this project on gap-forum and gap-support
mailing lists.
I am sure there will be more people interested in helping out if you
explain that potentially one would be able to seamlessly call GAP
functions from
Python...
Dima
On Mar 9, 7:58 am, Mike OS wrote:
> I have som
Mike,
if you need something specific for your goals implemented
on GAP side, please email gap-support and/or me.
Few further remarks:
I also noticed and reported here a while ago that Sage's functionality
for matrix group is not quite consistent with this functionality for
permutation groups (pro
Hi Michael,
Two quick links, based on this post and your sage-edu post.
"Needs work" implementation of finite abelian groups:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6449
Unit groups in a slightly different setting:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7234
More when I have some time lat
25 matches
Mail list logo
