> Suppose the user wants to use the "same name" in the "same sentence"
> (e.g. differentiate(poly)*differentiate(powerseries)). How is
> this resolved?
The pattern is to have differentiate(x) call x._differentiate_().
Nick
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this gr
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:00 PM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think that Axiom's solution can work for Sage because
> Axiom is a strongly typed language. But it does highlight at
> least one other point in the space of design decisions.
`argument dependent name lookup' (which i
> This is a general purpose python idea, actually. If there was
> a python function that looked at the namespace available for
> each .py file then it could decide that there are two lattice
> functions. This could issue an "import lattice from poset"
> to disambiguate the lattice question au
One thing that Python has going for it here is that it's object
oriented. So f.differentiate() is disambiguated because f has a type.
The time when this doesn't help is object creation (thus the issue for
Lattices). It's worth having this discussion, and I agree that names
matter, but the probl
>Sage just uses the mainstream language Python; we are
>not in the language design business. It's an interesting
>exercise to think through how each of the ideas you generously
>explained above is expressed using Python.
This is a general purpose python idea, actually. If there was
a python func
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:55 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll add my 2 cents, since I just read a post by William where he suggested
> he
> might remove the command kernel, leaving left_kernel and right_kernel (and
> I hope, adding kernel_left and kernel_right for tab comp
I'll add my 2 cents, since I just read a post by William where he suggested he
might remove the command kernel, leaving left_kernel and right_kernel (and
I hope, adding kernel_left and kernel_right for tab completion).
I'm not strongly in favor of Lattice (alone) for either the poset or the
finit
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:54 PM, root wrote:
>
> Axiom's "solution" to the lattice problem is to use an interpreter
> for user interaction. Instead of just talking to a top level lisp
> command prompt, you interact with the interpreter.
>
> The interpreter looks at the arguments and classifies them
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Axiom's "solution" to the lattice problem is to use an interpreter
> for user interaction. Instead of just talking to a top level lisp
> command prompt, you interact with the interpreter.
>
> The interpreter looks at the arg
Axiom's "solution" to the lattice problem is to use an interpreter
for user interaction. Instead of just talking to a top level lisp
command prompt, you interact with the interpreter.
The interpreter looks at the arguments and classifies them by type.
It looks for "modemaps" that define the funct
+1: Lattice as abelian group with inner product.
-1: Lattice as poset with meet and join
(of course I'm biased by number theory, though I admit that I have
heard of the second kind of lattice. ;-)
That being said, I'm glad people are working on the poset kind of
lattice: I'd wanted to do so for
I made an implementation of a self designed algorithm to compute the
distribute lattice representing all linear extensions of a given
poset. It should be really fast and also gives you the number pretty
quickly.
If there is interest I can make it SAGE compatible, whatever this
means. It is alread
The following references would seem relevant for what a "typical"
mathematician might think coming to Sage who isn't directly involved
in either kind of lattice on a daily basis, though it's not clear that
it resolves this discussion, since the authors below are self-
selecting. The idea that a "
Hi William
On Apr 24, 2:21 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Or is it intended to have both types of lattice in sage without to
> > explicitly import them from the corresponding package?
>
> Yes. We're only talking about the top-level global namespace.
I wouldn't mind to have
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Franco Saliola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:00 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 2008/4/24 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Franco Saliola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:00 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2008/4/24 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Franco Saliola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> w
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:27 AM, Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I never understood why some people say "lattice" when they have a
> "poset with meet and join"...
Same here. But they do and math terms are pretty arbitrary.
> But i don't see the point: Would it really be d
Hi!
I never understood why some people say "lattice" when they have a
"poset with meet and join"...
But i don't see the point: Would it really be difficult to live with
that name conflict?
I mean, certainly the two species of "lattice" would live in two
different packages, say (just for simplici
2008/4/24 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Franco Saliola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > We might want to think about the naming conventions for Lattice. As
> >
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Franco Saliola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We might want to think about the naming conventions for Lattice. As
> > with all words in mathematics, this one has multiple meanings.
As someone who is much more likely to use the non-poset lattices, I
could certainly live with ZLattice (that's Z as in ZZ). Would either
side get to keep plain Lattice?
John
2008/4/23 Franco Saliola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We might want to think about the naming conventions for Lattice. As
> with all words in mathematics, this one has multiple meanings. A
> lattice can be a poset with a meet and a join, or it can be a free
> abelian gro
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:48 PM, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not really qualified to comment in detail, but I thought I would
> mention that I am interested in computing face lattices of polytopes
> as part of my polytope module. Perhaps you could comment on whether
> there is
We might want to think about the naming conventions for Lattice. As
with all words in mathematics, this one has multiple meanings. A
lattice can be a poset with a meet and a join, or it can be a free
abelian group with an inner product. Normally I wouldn't bring such a
thing up, but I'm working wi
I'm not really qualified to comment in detail, but I thought I would
mention that I am interested in computing face lattices of polytopes
as part of my polytope module. Perhaps you could comment on whether
there is (or could be) anything in your code that might help me out
with that.
I think its
25 matches
Mail list logo
