Re: [sage-devel] Re: Conjugacy classes: Sage vs GAP

2010-01-08 Thread William Stein
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Mike Hansen wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Simon King wrote: >> By the way, is there any chance to create a "libGAP", i.e., a way to >> avoid the pexpect interface, similar to what has been done in >> libsingular? > > See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_t

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Conjugacy classes: Sage vs GAP

2010-01-08 Thread David Joyner
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:55 AM, javier wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been working on this and after a while decided that my original > approach wasn't the most appropriate and started rewriting everything > for scratch. > > After thinking about this problem making "conjugacy_class" a method > that

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Conjugacy classes: Sage vs GAP

2010-01-08 Thread Mike Hansen
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Simon King wrote: > By the way, is there any chance to create a "libGAP", i.e., a way to > avoid the pexpect interface, similar to what has been done in > libsingular? See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6391 --Mike -- To post to this group, send an em

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Conjugacy classes: Sage vs GAP

2010-01-08 Thread Nick Alexander
On 8-Jan-10, at 8:55 AM, javier wrote: Hi all, I have been working on this and after a while decided that my original approach wasn't the most appropriate and started rewriting everything for scratch. After thinking about this problem making "conjugacy_class" a method that returns a list (or

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Conjugacy classes: Sage vs GAP

2009-12-03 Thread Florent Hivert
> Yes, have a look at sage/groups/group.pyx. It has a FiniteGroup > class, where I think you should put your main method (that's what > Florent said as well, I think). Yep ! This will probably needs some cleanup when we will merge categories with the other generic stuff but I think this is the ri

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Conjugacy classes: Sage vs GAP

2009-12-03 Thread Alex Ghitza
Hi Javier, On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 11:03:43AM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:04 AM, javier wrote: > > > This also makes sense. I don't really know which choice would be > > better. Maybe having both, doing something like > > > > def conjugacy_class(self): > >G = self.p

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Conjugacy classes: Sage vs GAP

2009-12-03 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:04 AM, javier wrote: > Hi there, > > On Dec 3, 5:08 pm, Florent Hivert > wrote: >> However, I thing it should be a method of the group: >>G.conjugacy_class(g). > > that was my original idea, to keep it close to GAP original > definition. > >> Or even of the element itsel