-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 514
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
cayley_table has a syntax error #7340
Comments
comment:1
Looking at the code, its not obvious to me just where this output is coming from. Maybe from GAP?
So I don't think the bug is simply a question of the size of the group. Normal behavior creates a "Multivariate Polynomial Ring" with as many variables as the order of the group. Would a more brute-force approach (form all Rob |
comment:2
I think this is just the size of the group that is the issue. I could be wrong though. |
comment:3
Replying to @rbeezer: I can easily rewrite this in few gap.eval and gap commands, to get the multiplication table that
The result would be just the table (list of lists) with entries being indices of elements of the group numbered But I do not understand why that multivariate ring must be there. Dima
|
comment:4
Replying to @dimpase:
If you can do this, then this should be added as the default, IMHO. The multivariate ring is there in case you want to have the multiplication table given more compactly in terms of symbols (as opposed to permutations). I guess it was designed mostly so larger examples could created which then could be latexed for class notes. Note a key feature but I think a useful option for teachers. |
comment:5
Replying to @dimpase:
Hi Dima, I have something a bit more general working. An out-of-date version is at #7555. It just assumes an algebraic structure has a binary operation and builds a table from there. When complete it should have more flexibility for output. I'm not sure speed is a big issue because by the time you try to build a big table, you probably can't view it very easily anyway.
For one it made formatting the output very easy - just ask to print a matrix and let the matrix code do the work. I can't see much more benefit. I'll likely include this as an optional output form for anybody who needs it. Finishing this up is my next/current Sage project. Could I cc you on #7555 and maybe you can review it once I get a decent patch up? Thanks, |
comment:8
This is now obsolete/fixed as a result of #7555, so should be retired. I've cc'ed mvngu (who I think is currently doing release management work?). |
comment:9
Close as fixed by #7555:
|
CC: @rbeezer @jasongrout @sagetrac-mvngu
Component: group theory
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/7340
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: