Hi Florent,
> > I would also like to see a class which is generally useful
> > throughout Sage, as the default return type for many different
> > finite or enumerable structures.
>
> I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by this sentence. Can you give
> an example, please ?
Jason Bandlo
Dear Ralf,
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:53:21PM +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> I just love to see extensive documentation. The current documentation is
> not as precise as a mathematician wants. If I try to understand a
> function, I don't want to be forced to look at the code.
I certainl
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 12:04:56PM +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your feedback. Here is the rationale we had in
> > MuPAD-Combinat for *not* using the notation S[n]:
>
> > Say you want to denote the set of generators of a free module. When
> > writing mathematics, one very often u
Dear Ralf,
> I hope you don't feel offended by my questions.
Not at all !!!
> I knew the mathematics
> you were writing about. I was just saying that either the function
> basis() should be renamed to canonical_basis() or all what you wrote in
> your mail should better go into the spe
Dear Florent,
I hope you don't feel offended by my questions. I knew the mathematics
you were writing about. I was just saying that either the function
basis() should be renamed to canonical_basis() or all what you wrote in
your mail should better go into the specification of basis().
I just
Dear Ralf,
> Interesting! You probably meant F.basis(). But anyway, how can you be
> sure that b['a'] is the "same" as the 'a' in the free module?
As usual in mathematics, we identify two different things, whereas when
writing code we have to be very precise. The universal property in the
> Thanks for your feedback. Here is the rationale we had in
> MuPAD-Combinat for *not* using the notation S[n]:
> Say you want to denote the set of generators of a free module. When
> writing mathematics, one very often uses a family (b_i)_{i in I}. For
> for the free module F=Q.a \oplus Q.b \op
Dear Ronan,
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 08:32:10PM -0300, Ronan Paixão wrote:
> > Given such a set S, the "position" of an element in the enumeration is
> > called
> > it's rank. So that S.unrank(n) returns the n-th element of S and S.rank(el)
> > returns it's rank in S.
>
> I know nothing
Hello all,
>> I would think S.index(x) would be more intuitive to a non-
>> combinatorist like me.
I agree. I am well aware that 'rank' and 'unrank' are very common in
some places, but I found them non-intuitive at first. I would prefer
something like index/[] which I find more natural. (Th
> We need a name for this concept.
It looks like it's a `sequence', isn't it?
--
Matthias
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.c
Dear All,
> > I know nothing of combinatorics, but shouldn't accessing a set's n-th
> > element be more understandable using S[n] ?
>
> I agree.
>
> I would think S.index(x) would be more intuitive to a non-
> combinatorist
> like me. Do I understand correctly that these are sets enumera
Hi,
> I know nothing of combinatorics, but shouldn't accessing a set's n-th
> element be more understandable using S[n] ?
I agree.
I would think S.index(x) would be more intuitive to a non-
combinatorist
like me. Do I understand correctly that these are sets enumerated by
an indexing set (e.g.
> Given such a set S, the "position" of an element in the enumeration is called
> it's rank. So that S.unrank(n) returns the n-th element of S and S.rank(el)
> returns it's rank in S.
I know nothing of combinatorics, but shouldn't accessing a set's n-th
element be more understandable using S[n]
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> We have a good occasion to change this name in the short run, with our
> abstract class CombinatorialClass which will become a category. Suggestions of
> name for this category are VERY welcome!
>
> IterableSets ?
> Combinator
14 matches
Mail list logo
