Opened 5 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#12774 closed enhancement (fixed)
various enhancements for Coxeter and Weyl groups
Reported by: | mshimo | Owned by: | sage-combinat |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.8 |
Component: | combinatorics | Keywords: | coxeter group, weyl group, days45 |
Cc: | nthiery, aschilling | Merged in: | sage-5.8.beta0 |
Authors: | Mark Shimozono | Reviewers: | Christian Stump, Anne Schilling |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Various enhancements to Coxeter groups and Weyl groups.
- Computes inversions for Coxeter and Weyl groups. They occur in three forms: reflections, roots, and coroots.
New Coxeter group element methods:
categories/coxeter_groups.py
apply_conjugation_by_simple_reflection
inversions_as_reflections
left_inversions_as_reflections
New Weyl group element methods:
categories/weyl_groups.py
reflection_to_root
reflection_to_coroot
inversions
New root space element method:
combinat/root_system/root_space.py
associated_reflection
Bruhat covering relations have an associated inversion. Accordingly, we have added versions of the Coxeter group element methods bruhat_lower_covers and bruhat_upper_covers which incorporate the inversion data:
New Coxeter group element methods:
categories/coxeter_groups.py
bruhat_lower_covers_reflections
bruhat_upper_covers_reflections
New Weyl group element methods:
categories/weyl_groups.py
bruhat_lower_covers_coroots
bruhat_upper_covers_coroots
- Installs the Demazure or 0-Hecke product for Coxeter groups
New Coxeter group parent method:
categories/coxeter_groups.py
demazure_product
New Coxeter group element methods:
categories/coxeter_groups.py
apply_demazure_product
min_demazure_product_greater
- Computes canonical lifts from quotients by parabolic subgroups.
This requires Deodhar's recovery of the Bruhat order on a Coxeter group from that on a parabolic subgroup and the quotient by that subgroup.
New Coxeter group element methods:
categories/coxeter_groups.py
deodhar_factor_element
deodhar_lift_up
deodhar_lift_down
- Small changes for root systems
sage/combinat/root_system/root_lattice_realizations.py:
new parent method:
positive_roots_by_height
modified the calling convention for weyl_action
sage/combinat/root_system/root_space.py:
new element method:
max_coroot_le
Attachments (1)
Change History (26)
comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by
- Cc sage-combinat-devel added
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by
- Dependencies #6588, #12667 deleted
- Reviewers set to Christian Stump
comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by
Hi Mark,
I also went through categories/weyl_groups and made some minor changes. The only interesting is: I merged reflection_to_coroot into reflection_to_root and added an optional argument.
I hope to finish my review tonight...
btw: the patch needs to be rebased for sage-5.3.beta0 once we finish it.
Best, Christian
comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by
- Cc nthiery aschilling added; sage-combinat-devel removed
Hi,
concerning the modifications in RootLatticeRealizations:
- why don't we move this file into categories? (this might be answered somewhere else but I don't remember right now)
- shouldn't we implement the various methods for roots (roots, positive_roots, negative_roots, -_parabolic, -_nonparabolic, ...) right away as well for general Coxeter groups? It looks like we are not very far from that anyway (I actually do some rudimentary implementation in my other patch on Coxeter groups, but this part would perfectly fit here)
Christian
comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by
apply trac_12774-coxeter-ms-v2.patch
comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by
apply trac_12774-coxeter-ms-v2.patch
comment:9 follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 5 years ago by
apply trac_12774-coxeter-ms-v2.patch
I have just folded and rebased this patch. The bot seems to be green and happy.
This looks good to me. Anne, Nicolas, Christian, do you want to have a look ?
comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by
apply trac_12774-coxeter-ms-v2.patch
I have corrected the deprecations
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to chapoton:
apply trac_12774-coxeter-ms-v2.patch
I have just folded and rebased this patch. The bot seems to be green and happy.
This looks good to me. Anne, Nicolas, Christian, do you want to have a look ?
Has Mark answered or taken into account all of Christian's previous comments? If not, that should be done first!
Anne
comment:12 Changed 5 years ago by
What are cocovers? should the new methods be named instead bruhat_upper_covers_* / bruhat_lower_covers_* for consistency with posets?
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:13 Changed 4 years ago by
Regarding Comment 6, first question: I don't know. (Nicolas, can you answer this?) However I tried to put certain things involving root systems into categories and had my first encounter with import loops. Comment 6 second question: Since I don't know how much work it would take (and since my methods use root data, which is more information than the Cartan data needed for a Coxeter group) my vote is to finalize this patch without the extension to Coxeter groups.
Regarding Comment 12: Cocovers are what you are calling "lower covers" and covers are what you are calling "upper covers". I can change the names if you insist.
comment:14 follow-up: ↓ 15 Changed 4 years ago by
Does the version of the patch here reflection the current status?
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 14 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to stumpc5:
Does the version of the patch here reflection the current status?
I didn't change anything yet. The only additional changes I was planning to make (but have not yet made) were the method renamings that Nicolas suggested.
comment:16 Changed 4 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:17 Changed 4 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:18 follow-up: ↓ 19 Changed 4 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from Christian Stump to Christian Stump, Anne Schilling
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 18 Changed 4 years ago by
Mark and I went through the patch at Sage Days 45 and reviewed it together. Everything looks fine!
comment:20 Changed 4 years ago by
- Keywords days45 added
comment:21 Changed 4 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.7 to sage-5.8
comment:22 follow-up: ↓ 23 Changed 4 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
You should not use "assert" for bad user input, only to check for actual bugs. Bad input should probably give a ValueError
instead. The correct use for assert
is to check for conditions which you know are true if the program wouldn't have bugs.
If there is any way at all to reproduce an AssertionError
using documented public functions, that is by definition a bug.
Changed 4 years ago by
comment:23 in reply to: ↑ 22 Changed 4 years ago by
Looks good now!
comment:24 Changed 4 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
comment:25 Changed 4 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.8.beta0
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
I went through your changes for Coxeter groups -- it looks nice and clean so far! I attach a review patch with several minor modifications. I used your patch from the combinat queue, so please update the one here if necessary. Also, please update the header of the patch file (concerns auther and dependencies).
Best, Christian