Carl,
Thanks for reply,
> Actually, it's quite easy to intersect two context-free languages A
> and B: the answer is "the intersection of A and B", and I think it
> would be great if Sage would allow you to form such an intersection
> (if you're going to have lots of different kinds of languages
Carl,
Thanks for reply,
> Actually, it's quite easy to intersect two context-free languages A
> and B: the answer is "the intersection of A and B", and I think it
> would be great if Sage would allow you to form such an intersection
> (if you're going to have lots of different kinds of languages
On Dec 23, 12:31 pm, Pavel Sutyrin wrote:
> BTW, there is a question of basics: how to represent unknown/
> uncomputable. Say, you are going to intersect two unrestricted context-
> free languages (each having a pushdown automaton or a grammar inside).
> As far as this is generally unsolvable, yo
Privet Sébastien,
Thanks for reply,
> We are thinking of many new functionalities to add in the Words
> library. Some of them are related to automata and languages. For
> example, I was thinking to add a class for Language. For example, one
> could create a finite language from Words like :
>
>
Zdrazvitie Pavel,
> Long-term goal is to work towards a general and consistent library of
> formal language constructs, such as automata, grammars and so forth.
> Recent merge of Words seems to be of support.
We are thinking of many new functionalities to add in the Words
library. Some of them a
Robert,
> Most of the graph theory functions have a bunch of options for the
> format of the output, I'd say this would follow that trend, taking the
> old behavior as default.
Ok. I will try to extract edge based paths from generic graph
functions, depending on a new option.
> > For now only a
> Welcome to the community! We look forward to your contributions.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what thoughts or advice you are looking for. Are
> you proposing a change to Sage? Are you asking about other efforts to
> do similar things in python or Sage?
Jason, thanks for fast reply.
Our immedia
Pavel,
> > I would happily review any patch that did this, and I've made it trac
> > ticket #4854.
>
> Thanks for blazing reply. I'm not sure yet how to do this
> consistently: one may need to walk trough path by vertices or by
> edges, should this depend on multi_edges availability, etc.
Most o
Robert!
> I completely agree! Much of this functionality was written as a
> wrapper for NetworkX a while ago, and hasn't been revisited since. I
> would happily review any patch that did this, and I've made it trac
> ticket #4854.
Thanks for blazing reply. I'm not sure yet how to do this
consist
Pavel G. Sutyrin wrote:
> Dear Sage developers,
>
> Firstly, thanks for the great and beautiful system that is joy to work and
> play with.
>
> While trying to model deterministic finite automata over Sage
> (multi-)graphs,
> I've run into the following: paths are represented as lists of vertice
> ... paths should be considered as sequences of labeled edges, not
> vertices, as far as two vertices may be connected by differently labeled
> edges ...
I completely agree! Much of this functionality was written as a
wrapper for NetworkX a while ago, and hasn't been revisited since. I
would hap
11 matches
Mail list logo
