On 4 March 2015 at 08:11, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 08:47:40PM +, Simon King wrote:
>> > How should I fix this?
>>
>> By providing a starting point for the summation:
>> sage: sum([myElement]).parent()
>> ModularFormsRing(n=3) over Integer Ring
>> sage: myElement
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 08:47:40PM +, Simon King wrote:
> > How should I fix this?
>
> By providing a starting point for the summation:
> sage: sum([myElement]).parent()
> ModularFormsRing(n=3) over Integer Ring
> sage: myElement.parent()
> ModularForms(n=3, k=4, ep=1) over Integer Rin
Hi
In my case there is a cm.coercion_map(parent(myElement), parent(0))
(line 907) namely the coercions into the modular forms ring.
These maps are then used to map both myElement and 0 to the modular
forms ring (in contrast to the (vector) space myElement.parent()).
Unfortunately the check for
Hi,
Le dimanche 22 février 2015 21:25:02 UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
>
>
> On the other, this special case is consistent with the idea of the
> "univeral 0 object" proposed by John Cremona.
>
Indeed. In this respect, it is probably safe to use the literal 0 provided
one makes sure that it
On 2015-02-22 15:24, Simon King wrote:
Seriously? I didn't know that Sage's coercion model has such special
cases. OK, it makes it possible to get a typical usecase with least effort.
But my impression is that ultimately such special cases cause a lot more
confusion than a clear model in the spir
On 22 February 2015 at 10:00, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Le dimanche 22 février 2015 00:28:42 UTC+1, Simon King a écrit :
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 2015-02-21, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
>> > It seems that a possible way to have 0 + MyElement work even if ZZ does=
>> >=20
>> > not coerce
Hi
In my case "0 + MyElement" does find a common parent,
namely the modular forms _ring_.
So basically in my case "0 + some_element" is the same
as "some_element.as_ring_element()", unless the weight of
some_element (resp. its parent) is 0 with multiplier 1
in which case ZZ coerces into the spac
Le samedi 21 février 2015 23:09:24 UTC+1, Jonas Jermann a écrit :
>
> Hi
>
> It's a good idea but it won't work (in fact the _element_constructor_
> does accept zero correctly in my case). The coercion framework _first_
> tries to find a common parent and _then_ the rest happens.
>
At least
Hi
It's a good idea but it won't work (in fact the _element_constructor_
does accept zero correctly in my case). The coercion framework _first_
tries to find a common parent and _then_ the rest happens.
Best
Jonas
On 21.02.2015 22:59, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
Hi,
Le samedi 21 février 201
Hi,
Le samedi 21 février 2015 21:59:05 UTC+1, Jonas Jermann a écrit :
>
>
> The parent is a vector space / module not a ring. Every vector space
> contains zero, so in my opinion from a conceptual point of view
> adding zero should not change the parent space.
>
> However since it views 0 as an
Hi
On 21.02.2015 22:13, Nils Bruin wrote:
On Saturday, February 21, 2015 at 12:57:44 PM UTC-8, Simon King wrote:
I.e., if P is a commutative additive group, then P.coerce_map_from(ZZ)
should return a morphism in the category of commutative additive
groups.
Then, x+0 should work
Hi
On 21.02.2015 21:57, Simon King wrote:
On 2015-02-21, Simon King wrote:
If ZZ does not coerce into the parent of your element, then the parent
is not a (unitary) ring.
PS:
And if it is not a ring, then many things don't work as smoothly as they
should.
For example, if P is a commutative
Hi Simon
On 21.02.2015 21:47, Simon King wrote:
Hi Jonas,
On 2015-02-21, Jonas Jermann wrote:
ZZ does not coerce into myElement.parent() so I end up in a much
larger space than myElement.parent(). However I would prefer if adding
zero didn't change the parent space.
If ZZ does not coerce in
13 matches
Mail list logo
