[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-12 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Nov 11, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > > Dear category fans, > > Latest status report for the category patches: > > - They apply smoothly on 4.2.1 alpha0, with all test passing :-) > (This is on a macbook pro ubuntu 9.4 with everything up to > trac_4326-root_systems-nt.

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-12 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
Dear Dan, Anne, Mike, category fans, I created a dummy patch sage-4.3 in our queue to delimit what is 100% ready to be merged into Sage 4.3. So, to run the tests, you can just qpush to sage-4.3 in the Sage-Combinat queue. Dan, Anne: I just included #3663 and #5794 there. Could you pleas

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-12 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 04:26:05PM -0800, William Stein wrote: > The status is listed here: > > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/query?status=positive_review&status=needs_work&status=needs_review&status=needs_info&status=new&group=status&milestone=sage-4.2.1 Thanks! > On sage-release I

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-11 Thread William Stein
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > >        Dear category fans, > > Latest status report for the category patches: > >  - They apply smoothly on 4.2.1 alpha0, with all test passing :-) >   (This is on a macbook pro ubuntu 9.4 with everything up to >   trac_4326-root_syste

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-11 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:17:09AM +0100, Nicolas Thiéry wrote: > Latest status report for the category patches: > > - They apply smoothly on 4.2.1 alpha0, with all test passing :-) >(This is on a macbook pro ubuntu 9.4 with everything up to >trac_4326-root_systems-nt.patch in the Sage-C

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-11 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
Dear category fans, Latest status report for the category patches: - They apply smoothly on 4.2.1 alpha0, with all test passing :-) (This is on a macbook pro ubuntu 9.4 with everything up to trac_4326-root_systems-nt.patch in the Sage-Combinat queue) Mike: could you please run

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-11 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:20:34AM +0100, Florent hivert wrote: > > combinat.sagemath.org/code and /doc are now up to date! > > I was browsing on /doc in particular in the documentation of the > categories. I must says that though it's still draft, it already looks pretty > good. However, I can't

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-11 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:55:16PM -0800, William Stein wrote: > I looked at > http://combinat.sagemath.org/hgwebdir.cgi/code/file/tip/sage/categories/number_fields.py > and it looks good to me. Thanks! > >  - Final comments on Groupoid (Robert) That's the only one remaining! > >  - A positiv

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-11 Thread Florent Hivert
Hi Nicolas, > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 05:23:28PM +0100, Nicolas Thiéry wrote: > > > While browsing the code I realized that the files "entire_rings" and > > > "ordered_sets" are still there. Didn't we agree in a name change? From > > > sage one calls the right Domains() rather than EntireR

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-11 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 05:23:28PM +0100, Nicolas Thiéry wrote: > > While browsing the code I realized that the files "entire_rings" and > > "ordered_sets" are still there. Didn't we agree in a name change? From > > sage one calls the right Domains() rather than EntireRings() but I > > found the p

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-10 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:54:03AM -0800, javier wrote: > > Here is an updated short status report for the category code. All test > > pass now on 4.2! Here is what remains to be done: > > > >  - A positive review on Rings (David K.? Javier?) > > Done and passed. Great, thanks! > While browsing

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-10 Thread Florent Hivert
Hi William, > Nick -- please please keep pushing this stuff!! It's really important > to people that this all get in promptly. I would like to see as much > as possible that the combinat branch get merged back into mainline > sage. You're not the only one !!! Here is the status of our b

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: almost there!

2009-11-09 Thread William Stein
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > >        Dear category fans, > > Here is an updated short status report for the category code. All test > pass now on 4.2! Here is what remains to be done: > >  - A positive review on Rings (David K.? Javier?) >  - A positive review on ca

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: the last ones?

2009-10-29 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 02:33:04AM -0700, javier wrote: > > > > On Oct 29, 12:38 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery" > wrote: > > Again, that's just how it used to be. Do we have an agreement for > > having both: > > > >         PartiallyOrderedSets() > >         TotallyOrderedSets() > > > > I haven't Wik

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories review: algebra_ideals.py and algebra_modules.py

2009-10-15 Thread Ralf Hemmecke
Could you elaborate. I would like to understand why the statement that "every module is a bimodule" is not acceptable. In PanAxiom we have BiModule(R:Ring,S:Ring):Category == Join(LeftModule(R), RightModule(S)) Module(R:CommutativeRing): Category == BiModule(R,R) add if not(R is %)

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories

2009-07-08 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
Dear William, On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:33:11AM -0700, William Stein wrote: > Thanks. I'll think of you as the "release manager" for putting > together the Sage library code that goes from sage-4.1.rc0 to > sagecombinat-4.1.rc0. This could mean that you provide a command I > can type t

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories

2009-07-07 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
Dear William, dear category fans, On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:33:11AM -0700, William Stein wrote: > >> To do this, could somebody ASAP build sage-4.1.rc0.tar, pull and > >> rebase all the *-combinat stuff against it? Done. One thing though: #5882 just changed the category of a category t

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories

2009-07-07 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:33:11AM -0700, William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas M. > Thiery wrote: > > > >        Dear William, > > > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:00:00AM -0700, William Stein wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Anne Schilling > >> wrote: > >> > L

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories

2009-07-07 Thread William Stein
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > >        Dear William, > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:00:00AM -0700, William Stein wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Anne Schilling wrote: >> > Let me reiterate Nicolas' message that it would be really >> > great to have his categ

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories

2009-07-07 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
Dear William, On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:00:00AM -0700, William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Anne Schilling wrote: > > Let me reiterate Nicolas' message that it would be really > > great to have his category code (and hopefully the root system > > and affine crystal patc

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories

2009-07-07 Thread William Stein
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Anne Schilling wrote: > > Hi! > > Let me reiterate Nicolas' message that it would be really > great to have his category code (and hopefully the root system > and affine crystal patches) integrated into Sage before FPSAC > which starts in less than two weeks from no

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-06-13 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 9:25 PM, William Stein wrote: > For me rings always have both 1 and 0. > I would call a "ring without 1" an algebra. It is common terminology to call a `Ring without 1' a Rng. I'm usually not a fan of Wikipedia as reference, but here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-06-13 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 9:25 PM, William Stein wrote: > > On 5/23/09, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: >> >>       Dear Sage developers, >> >> The point below was discussed during Sage Days 15, >> >> On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 04:31:52PM +0100, Nicolas Thiéry wrote: >>> >>> ... About naming conventions for

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-06-08 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:39:03AM +0200, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > Although, when I first saw Rng in Axiom, I didn't understand why the > programmers used something that looked like an abbreviation. But, in > fact, I somehow like that name. It makes it pretty obvious that the > 'identity' is some

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-05-27 Thread Ralf Hemmecke
>> Z is also a ring without one, i.e., Ring should inherit from Rng. > > Definitely. And this is the case. > >> I would rather say that Rng is a "ring" that *doesn't claim* the >> existence of 1. > > Yup, it's like non-associative rings of which rings are a special case. > Now, I need a better

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-05-26 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:21:58AM +0200, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > > > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 01:44:40PM +0100, John Cremona wrote: > >> I also would not use "ring" unless it had both a 0 and a 1. > > > Sorry, if I was unclearn. I was not doubting the a consensus about this. > > Aha, A := 3Z (al

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-05-26 Thread Ralf Hemmecke
>>> The question I was raising was about the names we wanted to use for >>> "rings" without 0 resp. 1. >> Z is also a ring without one, i.e., Ring should inherit from Rng. I > > ??? Z contained 1 last time I looked! > > John > >> would rather say that Rng is a "ring" that *doesn't claim* the ex

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-05-26 Thread John Cremona
2009/5/26 Ralf Hemmecke : > >> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 01:44:40PM +0100, John Cremona wrote: >>> I also would not use "ring" unless it had both a 0 and a 1. > >> Sorry, if I was unclearn. I was not doubting the a consensus about this. > > Aha, A := 3Z (all multiples of 3) is not a (mathematical) r

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-05-26 Thread Ralf Hemmecke
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 01:44:40PM +0100, John Cremona wrote: >> I also would not use "ring" unless it had both a 0 and a 1. > Sorry, if I was unclearn. I was not doubting the a consensus about this. Aha, A := 3Z (all multiples of 3) is not a (mathematical) ring!? And {0} also doesn't count a

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-05-25 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 01:44:40PM +0100, John Cremona wrote: > I also would not use "ring" unless it had both a 0 and a 1. Sorry, if I was unclearn. I was not doubting the a consensus about this. The question I was raising was about the names we wanted to use for "rings" without 0 resp. 1. >

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-05-24 Thread John Cremona
I also would not use "ring" unless it had both a 0 and a 1. I have not looked at the rest of what has been done in any one detail. But I hope that all the functionality for abelian groups will be available for both additive and multiplicative groups, something which is certainly not the case at

[sage-devel] Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Categories for the working programmer

2009-05-23 Thread William Stein
On 5/23/09, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > > Dear Sage developers, > > The point below was discussed during Sage Days 15, > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 04:31:52PM +0100, Nicolas Thiéry wrote: >> >> ... About naming conventions for categories: >> >> - Do we want to stick to the (possibly question