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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 %)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/
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
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
>> 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
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
>>> 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
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
> 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
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.
>
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo