Simon King a écrit :
> Sage has both left and right actions. I would need to look up the
> details, but it is no problem to implement a right action of S2 on S1
> rather than a left action of S1 on S2. Since the mathematical property
> of "being an action" is not relevant in the implementation, you
Hi Marc,
On 2013-08-14, Marc Mezzarobba wrote:
>> Do you see what you just did? You use "call notation" for one action,
>> i.e., d/dx(x), but use multiplicative notation for the other action,
>> i.w., d/dx*x.
>
> Yes, except that the second one is not an action of S1 on S2 from the
> left, but a
Hi,
Simon King wrote:
>>> I think quite often one is in a situation that one has two different
>>> sets (rings, groups, ...) S1, S2, such that there is only one action
>>> of S1 on S2 from the left, and thus if one has s1 from S1 and s2
>>> from S2, then s1*s2 is not ambiguous.
>>
>> I guess it de
Hi Marc,
On 2013-08-14, Marc Mezzarobba wrote:
> Simon King wrote:
>> I think quite often one is in a situation that one has two different
>> sets (rings, groups, ...) S1, S2, such that there is only one action
> of
>> S1 on S2 from the left, and thus if one has s1 from S1 and s2 from S2,
>> the
Simon King wrote:
> I think quite often one is in a situation that one has two different
> sets (rings, groups, ...) S1, S2, such that there is only one action
of
> S1 on S2 from the left, and thus if one has s1 from S1 and s2 from S2,
> then s1*s2 is not ambiguous.
I guess it depends what exactl
On 2013-08-13, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> (2) Provide an easy way for the user to register g*x as shorthand for
> the above when he thinks it's ok in his/her context.
I think quite often one is in a situation that one has two different
sets (rings, groups, ...) S1, S2, such that there is only
