Hi Martin, Michael,
clearly that example was too quickly made up and is somewhat redundant
(due to 2 variables).
a(w_1, ..., w_n) is the elementary comparison wrt the scalar product
of an exponent with the vector (w_1, ..., w_n) (denoted by $>_
{(w_1, ..., w_n)}$). Any matrix ordering is exactl
Hi!
It seems to me, that restricted to rings and ideals,
the ordering looks like
2 5
-1 -2
So, the Matrix M(1,1,0,-1) is probably useless in this example.
Michael
Am 09.09.2009 um 12:56 schrieb Martin Albrecht:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I have to say that I don't like the
>
> WeightVector(2,5) + Modul
Hi there,
I have to say that I don't like the
WeightVector(2,5) + ModuleOrder('c')
syntax. WeightVector is a modification of the following term order (in
Singular). It feels much more natural to me to simply do:
TermOrder('lex',weights=(2,5))
Also, I don't really understand what
>
Hi Michael,
On Sep 8, 3:33 pm, Michael Brickenstein wrote:
> Am 08.09.2009 um 15:25 schrieb Oleksandr:
> > On Sep 7, 3:17 pm, Michael Brickenstein wrote:
> >> Am 07.09.2009 um 14:34 schrieb Oleksandr:
> >>> What about Sage implementation for
>
> >>> 1. weighting vector(s) "a(w1, w2...wn)",
> >>
Hi Oleksandr!
Am 08.09.2009 um 15:25 schrieb Oleksandr:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 7, 3:17 pm, Michael Brickenstein wrote:
>> Am 07.09.2009 um 14:34 schrieb Oleksandr:
>>> What about Sage implementation for
>>
>>> 1. weighting vector(s) "a(w1, w2...wn)",
>>> 2. free module orderings (e.g. c/C) mixed so
Hi,
On Sep 7, 3:17 pm, Michael Brickenstein wrote:
> Am 07.09.2009 um 14:34 schrieb Oleksandr:
> > What about Sage implementation for
>
> > 1. weighting vector(s) "a(w1, w2...wn)",
> > 2. free module orderings (e.g. c/C) mixed somewhere in between? Does
> > Sage have such a concept?
>
> I suppos
Hi!
Am 07.09.2009 um 14:34 schrieb Oleksandr:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> What about Sage implementation for
>
> 1. weighting vector(s) "a(w1, w2...wn)",
> 2. free module orderings (e.g. c/C) mixed somewhere in between? Does
> Sage have such a concept?
I suppose, that the answer is no.
>
> In Sage i
Hi Martin,
What about Sage implementation for
1. weighting vector(s) "a(w1, w2...wn)",
2. free module orderings (e.g. c/C) mixed somewhere in between? Does
Sage have such a concept?
In Sage i'd imagine something like:
{{{
TermOrder = WeightVector(2,5) + ModuleOrder('c') + WeightVector(-1,-2)
+
> Meanwhile I've also seen the code of TermOrder.__add__. It is rather
> un-pythonic, as it entirely relies on working with strings.
> So, a proper support of Matrix orders will be more work, and wrapping
> things in libsingular will not suffice.
Sure, it is rather ad-hoc at the moment. As soon
Hi!
> More importantly: if Sage accesses the Singular kernel directly -
> these Singular interpreter markers cannot help Sage...
Independent from what is the right solution, I would like to mention,
that I worked with Martin on using the same interface to the kernel
functions as the Singular int
Hi Martin!
On Sep 4, 12:33 pm, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
[..]
> Think this would be rather un-pythonic: converting an object into a string
> instead of using it directly.
>
> > But what about block orderings? If one allows a matrix ordering to be
> > defined by a matrix, then I guess the blocks sho
Dear Simon,
On Sep 5, 12:34 pm, Simon King wrote:
> On Sep 5, 10:53 am, Oleksandr wrote:
> > First of all, please, let me explain that Singular kernel doesn't have
> > any such markers...
> Really? The only part of the Singular kernel that I ever met is
> iparith.cc, or is this not kernel? Here
Hi Oleksandr,
On Sep 5, 10:53 am, Oleksandr wrote:
[...]
> First of all, please, let me explain that Singular kernel doesn't have
> any such markers...
Really? The only part of the Singular kernel that I ever met is
iparith.cc, or is this not kernel? Here, one typically sees lines such
as
{jjS
Hi Simon,
On Sep 4, 8:23 pm, Simon King wrote:
> On Sep 4, 6:52 pm, Oleksandr wrote:
> > Please do let us know about your favorite and yet missing non-
> > commutative features!
> > Any feedback is greatly appreciated!
> AFAIK, the Singular kernel has a marker for functions that are only
> ava
Hi Oleksandr!
On Sep 4, 6:52 pm, Oleksandr wrote:
[...]
> Please do let us know about your favorite and yet missing non-
> commutative features!
>
> Any feedback is greatly appreciated!
AFAIK, the Singular kernel has a marker for functions that are only
available in the commutative case. I thin
Hello,
i would like to add that commutative variables in supercommutative
algebras may be local (whereas non-commutative variables must be
global), e.g:
{{{
LIB "nctools.lib";
ring r=0,(x,y,z), (ds(1), dp(2)); // x is local!
def E = superCommutative(2,3);setring E; E;
// characteristic : 0
//
Hi Burcin, Michael, Simon,
Please let me explain the current non-commutative Singular
conventions:
1. the only way to create a G-algebra is to endow a commutative
polynomial ring (NOT a qring!) with a non-commutative structure
2. in order to create a GR-algebra:
compute two-sided GB in G-algebra
Hi Burcin!
On Sep 4, 2:52 pm, Burcin Erocal wrote:
[...]
> > Since there ishttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4539and it
> > says "need work": What exactly is needed to do? Is it just a decision
> > about the interface? In that case, I am +1 to your suggestion!
>
> No, unfortunately it's
Hi!
> - sort out coercion
> - wrap various functions defined by Singular:
> http://www.singular.uni-kl.de/Manual/latest/sing_390.htm#SEC431
This part won't require hard Singular knowledge.
We probably will have to add some missing pieces to LibSingularFunction
to make the wrapping really eas
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 05:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi Burcin, Hi Michael,
>
> On Sep 4, 1:23 pm, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> [...]
> > Do you mean the Letterplace (why do they capitalize the names of
> > these things?!?) extension [1] ?
> >
> > [1]http://www.singular.uni-kl.de/Manual/la
Hi Burcin, Hi Michael,
On Sep 4, 1:23 pm, Burcin Erocal wrote:
[...]
> Do you mean the Letterplace (why do they capitalize the names of
> these things?!?) extension [1] ?
>
> [1]http://www.singular.uni-kl.de/Manual/latest/sing_425.htm#SEC478
I think so. I didn't use it myself, but I heard it be
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 05:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi Burcin!
>
> On Sep 4, 12:56 pm, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> [...]
> > > So, one should expect that Sage should use two matrices as well.
> >
> > This is not necessary. There is some code written by Michael that
> > converts the relat
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi Golam!
>
> On Sep 4, 12:18 pm, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
> [...]
> > An example session would be:
> > --
> > sage: A,B = nc_var('A,B')
> > sage: a,b,c,d = var('a,b,c,d')
> >
> > sage: C = a*A + b*A*A
> > sage: D =
Hi!
> * AFAIK, free non-commutative rings are only experimental in
> Singular, and probably not yet ready for being wrapped in libSingular
AFAIK (and I hope, that's more) free algebras in Singular are only an
emulation on top of our existing rings and only work up to some
degree.
I think, this
Hi Burcin!
On Sep 4, 12:56 pm, Burcin Erocal wrote:
[...]
> > So, one should expect that Sage should use two matrices as well.
>
> This is not necessary. There is some code written by Michael that
> converts the relations to a matrix, and passes that on to Singular
> around line 396 of the patch
Hi Golam!
On Sep 4, 12:18 pm, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote:
[...]
> An example session would be:
> --
> sage: A,B = nc_var('A,B')
> sage: a,b,c,d = var('a,b,c,d')
>
> sage: C = a*A + b*A*A
> sage: D = d*B
> sage: commutator(C, D)
> a*d*commutator(A,B) + b*d*A*commutator(A,B) + b*d*comm
Hi Simon,
I should have mentioned earlier that long ago Michael Brickenstein and
I wrote a preliminary interface to Plural. You can find the patches
here:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4539
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Simon King wrote:
> > Is there anybody else intere
Hi Martin!
On Sep 4, 12:33 pm, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
[...]
> > But it is perhaps not so nice to break compatibility with the current
> > way of defining an ordering by strings.
>
> > Closer to Singular syntax would be
> > sage: R. = PolynomialRing(QQ,2,order='M(1,3,1,0)')
>
> Think this would
> Currently, the ordering of a ring is determined by a string "name":
> TermOrder.__init__(self, name='lex', n = 0, blocks=True)
> respectively "order": PolynomialRing(base_ring, arg1=None, arg2=None,
> sparse=False, order='degrevlex', names=None, name=None,
> implementation=None)
> Of course, it
Hi all!
On Sep 4, 11:33 am, Burcin Erocal wrote:
[...]
> > Maybe, you can give use a list, what you need.
>
> Can you also provide example sage sessions showing how you think these
> objects should be constructed?
I need graded commutative rings, which can be easily constructed,
provided that o
Hi Burcin,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> Is there anybody else interested in a wrapper for the noncommutative
> functionality provided by Singular?
>
> Singular's capabilities are described in the manual here:
>
> http://www.singular.uni-kl.de/Manual/latest/sing_356.htm
Hi Simon,
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 03:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Michael Brickenstein wrote:
>
> Hi Simon!
> > > It is in fact one of the things that I miss in Sage's polynomial
> > > rings (the other thing are supercommutative rings),
>
> Burcin will visit KL in octobre to work on
> the integration of
> no
32 matches
Mail list logo
