>> > Just in case, note that for multiplication in rings, you can already do:
>> >
>> > sage: IntegerModRing(10).unit_group().cayley_graph()
Hey, my mistake, I thought you were saying that it is how the
*additive* group could be obtained.
About my other question: what should groups.misc.A
> Perhaps you should consider adding an alias or renaming it. I would
> miss it every time.
Especially since I was following a paper which calls it "the additive
group of ". (just checked).
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
> The multiplication law in a ring is never a group law sice zero is not
> invertible, so, for multiplication we have to select the invertible
> elements, those form the unig group.
Perhaps you should consider adding an alias or renaming it. I would
miss it every time.
Nathann
--
You received t
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:46:26AM +0200, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> > Just in case, note that for multiplication in rings, you can already do:
> >
> > sage: IntegerModRing(10).unit_group().cayley_graph()
>
> Whaat? Unit group? Is that standard terminology? What's wrong with
> `.additive_g
> i guess the actual issue is that groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic(10) produces a
> ring, not a group, hence the confusion:
>
> sage: G = groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic(10)
> sage: G in Groups()
> False
I really love the fact that groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic(10) is "not a group"
> I
Hi,
i guess the actual issue is that groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic(10) produces a
ring, not a group, hence the confusion:
sage: G = groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic(10)
sage: G is IntegerModRing(10)
True
sage: G in Groups()
False
sage: G in Rings()
T
Hello everybody,
Playing with products of groups today, I was not able to obtain what I
expected from the 'cayley graph' function, as it seems to use (by
default) the multiplicative operation defined on my group (my group is
groups.misc.AdditiveCyclic(10))
What do you think is the cayley graph ge
