On Feb 2, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
G.irreducible_characters() is a list of lists, not a list of tuples,
so one cannot just take set() of them.
On another note, for both this and word problem, you might want to
consider whether a list of tuples would be better to return than a
yeah, you're right, sorry --- my workday started 14 hours ago...
OK, I'll follow your hint, thanks!
On Feb 2, 10:53 pm, YannLC wrote:
> Read again my proposal
>
> sage: set([tuple(x.values()) for x in G.irreducible_characters()]) ==
> expected
>
> you need tuple... just add it!
>
> On Feb 2, 3:50
Read again my proposal
sage: set([tuple(x.values()) for x in G.irreducible_characters()]) ==
expected
you need tuple... just add it!
On Feb 2, 3:50 pm, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> G.irreducible_characters() is a list of lists, not a list of tuples,
> so one cannot just
> take set() of them.
>
> On
G.irreducible_characters() is a list of lists, not a list of tuples,
so one cannot just
take set() of them.
On Feb 2, 10:01 pm, YannLC wrote:
> Maybe just using sets:
>
> sage: G = GL(2,3)
> sage: k. = CyclotomicField(8)
> sage: expected = set([(3, 0, 3, 0, -1, 1, 1, -1), (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
> 1,
Maybe just using sets:
sage: G = GL(2,3)
sage: k. = CyclotomicField(8)
sage: expected = set([(3, 0, 3, 0, -1, 1, 1, -1), (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
1, 1), (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, -1, -1, -1), (2, -1, 2, -1, 2, 0, 0, 0), (4,
-1, -4, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0), (2, 1, -2, -1, 0, zeta8^3 + zeta8, -zeta8^3 -
zeta8, 0), (2, 1, -2
On Feb 2, 8:54 pm, YannLC wrote:
> Why don't you use something like this e.g.:
>
> sage: A. = AbelianGroup(5,[4, 5, 5, 7, 8])
> sage: b1 = a^3*b*c*d^2*e^5
> sage: b2 = a^2*b*c^2*d^3*e^3
> sage: b3 = a^7*b^3*c^5*d^4*e^4
> sage: b4 = a^3*b^2*c^2*d^3*e^5
> sage: b5 = a^2*b^4*c^2*d^4*e^5
> sage: wo
Why don't you use something like this e.g.:
sage: A. = AbelianGroup(5,[4, 5, 5, 7, 8])
sage: b1 = a^3*b*c*d^2*e^5
sage: b2 = a^2*b*c^2*d^3*e^3
sage: b3 = a^7*b^3*c^5*d^4*e^4
sage: b4 = a^3*b^2*c^2*d^3*e^5
sage: b5 = a^2*b^4*c^2*d^4*e^5
sage: word_problem([b1,b2,b3,b4,b5],e) #random order
[[a^3*b*
On Jan 31, 1:15 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 1:46 pm, Robert Bradshaw
> > wrote:
> >> On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> >> > William,
> >> > I think TESTS:: would be a good idea!
> >> > Having an optiona
On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
William,
I think TESTS:: would be a good idea!
Having an optional part TESTS:: where one can put more or less any
Sage code; if TESTS:: is present,
EXAMPLES:: is ignored, and otherwise EXAMPLES:: play the role of
TESTS::
We already use TESTS b
William,
I think TESTS:: would be a good idea!
Having an optional part TESTS:: where one can put more or less any
Sage code; if TESTS:: is present,
EXAMPLES:: is ignored, and otherwise EXAMPLES:: play the role of
TESTS::
Indeed, without this it is impossible to really test, say, a function
that
pr
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:06 PM, John H Palmieri
wrote:
> On Jan 28, 9:59 pm, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> as discussed recently here in connection with GAP interface, the
>> following looks like an obvious deficiency of docstrings testing: a
>> computation returns a list in some unpredictable order
On Jan 28, 9:59 pm, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> as discussed recently here in connection with GAP interface, the
> following looks like an obvious deficiency of docstrings testing: a
> computation returns a list in some unpredictable order, and docstrings
> are in another order, even though the corres
12 matches
Mail list logo
