Hi Simon,
On 2018-06-01, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
> (1) Use unique representation for "ambient" objects ( GL(n,k), O(n,k,e),
> QQ^n).
+1, unless you say that each set (including a subset of something)
is an ambient object.
> (2) Do not use unique representation for subobjects.
+1, except for s
> > (4) Modify == to test equality as subobjects/subsets.
>
> -1, as I tend to think of "==" as a QUICK test.
>
> If testing equality has a potential to hit decision problems (which
> certainly is the case for subgroups), then "==" should give a swift
> "True" if the two objects are easily se
On 26/05/2018 06:24, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
MatrixGroups are immutable and their comparison is by checking the
generators (and not isomorphism), which are essentially the construction
parameters (in reality, they are the corresponding GAP group). For
permutation groups, the equality seems to
On 03/06/2018 10:54, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
(4) Modify == to test equality as subobjects/subsets.
-1, as I tend to think of "==" as a QUICK test.
If testing equality has a potential to hit decision problems (which
certainly is the case for subgroups), then "==" should give a swift
"True" i
On 30/05/2018 08:14, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:01:51 PM UTC+10, chris wuthrich wrote:
As a simple-minded user I stumbled over exactly this last week. I don't
understand much of what this thread is discussing, but I know what a
simple-minded user wants.
sage: G
On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 12:26:46 PM UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Note also that it is perfectly fine for "==" to raise an error such as
> NotImplementedError. If some algorithm is not able to decide whether
> H1 and H2 are equal it can just give up.
The problem isn't that the computer will
On 29/05/2018 21:45, 'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote:
Actually, I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to change the internal
representation of set partitions to restricted growth words (together with
a fixed ordering of the base set).
On the one hand, very likely everything becomes much faster.
Hi Travis,
On 2018-06-03, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> I am also generally in favor of having == being a (generally) fast check.
> However, the symbolics code takes the opposite approach: it has the method
> is_trivial_equal() for quick checks but == fires up the proof engine.
No, that's not cor
Hey I have the following question,
I tried to install a few functions into the Sage/src Directory but however
they didn't show up in Sage.
I have created a Folder in the src/Sage Directory which has the following
files:
__init__.py:
import all
all.py:
from .test import myAdd
test.py:
def
Sun 2018-06-03 11:33:16 UTC, Simon King:
>
> For symbolics, "==" only does trivial checks and leaves the equality
> unevaluated otherwise, so that you need an explicit evaluation as a
> bool in order to force a non-trivial computation.
>
> Such as:
>
> sage: (x+1)^2 == x^2+2*x+1
> (x + 1)^2 ==
On 2018-06-03, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Travis,
>
> On 2018-06-03, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>> I am also generally in favor of having == being a (generally) fast check.
>> However, the symbolics code takes the opposite approach: it has the method
>> is_trivial_equal() for quick checks but == fire
Hi,
did you add something within $SAGE_ROOT/src/sage/all.py ?
Ciao,
Thierry
On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 04:51:45AM -0700, Jupiter Crafter wrote:
> Hey I have the following question,
> I tried to install a few functions into the Sage/src Directory but however
> they didn't show up in Sage.
> I have
Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> In terms of surprise, the fast == is clearly worse,
It is not that clear to me! (What I think I'd expect if I didn't know
Sage would be for == to compare the representation of the objects, not
their mathematical semantics, even when that semantics is unambiguous.)
--
Sun 2018-06-03 11:53:48 UTC, Jupiter Crafter:
>
> How can I create a permanent function Library for Sage
> so I can simply use the Function myAdd(3,4) after loading
> sage and not include something.
Put your functions in a file called init.sage
which you place in the .sage directory in
your home d
Hi,
Thanks a lot didn't saw that file.
Made my day
Tom
Am Sonntag, 3. Juni 2018 14:17:23 UTC+2 schrieb Thierry
(sage-googlesucks@xxx):
>
> Hi,
>
> did you add something within $SAGE_ROOT/src/sage/all.py ?
>
> Ciao,
> Thierry
>
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 04:51:45AM -0700, Jupiter Crafter wrote:
Thanks a lot,
never thought about this,
made my day,
Tom
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this g
On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:56:01 PM UTC+10, Simon King wrote:
>
> On 2018-06-03, Simon King > wrote:
> > Hi Travis,
> >
> > On 2018-06-03, Travis Scrimshaw >
> wrote:
> >> I am also generally in favor of having == being a (generally) fast
> check.
> >> However, the symbolics code takes t
> > I think it is a bad thing in this case for == to be equality as sets.
> > Imagine if these are two really big, equal, but differently constructed
> > subgroups. This would be a really long and expensive check, whereas in
> most
> > cases, checking the defining objects are sufficient. I be
> > How can I create a permanent function Library for Sage
> > so I can simply use the Function myAdd(3,4) after loading
> > sage and not include something.
>
> Put your functions in a file called init.sage
> which you place in the .sage directory in
> your home directory.
>
You can split the di
19 matches
Mail list logo
