#14454 closed enhancement (fixed)
Regular crystals category
Reported by: | tscrim | Owned by: | sage-combinat |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.10 |
Component: | categories | Keywords: | normal crystals, categories |
Cc: | sage-combinat, bsalisbury1, aschilling, nthiery | Merged in: | sage-5.10.beta2 |
Authors: | Travis Scrimshaw, Anne Schilling | Reviewers: | Anne Schilling, Travis Scrimshaw |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | #14252, #14287 | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Attachments (1)
Change History (19)
comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by
- Cc aschilling nthiery added
comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by
- Dependencies #14413 deleted
comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by
- Dependencies set to #14252
comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Summary changed from Normal crystals category to Regular crystals category
After some discussion with Ben, we decided to call these regular crystals (this agrees with the crystals tutorial).
For patchbot:
Apply: trac_14454-regular_crystals-ts.patch
comment:6 follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 7 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Reviewers set to Anen Schilling, Travis Scrimshaw
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 7 years ago by
I posted a review patch which moves some material to the appropriate category. There is still one issue: there are tests for the Stembridge rules in the finite crystal category. But really they should be in a finite/regular category. Should we create a separate category for finite regular crystals?
Anne
comment:8 follow-up: ↓ 9 Changed 7 years ago by
I believe the Stembridge axioms are valid for any crystal with a simply-laced Cartan matrix, with no assumption that the crystal is finite. Can the Stembridge axioms be moved to the regular crystals category with an added condition that if the cardinality of the crystal is infinite (or unknown), then only test to finite depth?
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 ; follow-up: ↓ 10 Changed 7 years ago by
I tried this, but then the tests in generalized_young_walls.py did not pass any longer.
Anne
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 7 years ago by
I should say for the highest weight crystals in that file.
comment:11 Changed 7 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
New version of the patch with the review patch folded in and a couple of other tweaks.
comment:12 Changed 7 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:13 Changed 7 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #14252 to #14252, #14287
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
This needs to be rebased to #14287.
Changed 7 years ago by
comment:14 Changed 7 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Fixed doctest from changes in #14287.
comment:15 Changed 7 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:16 Changed 7 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.10.beta2
- Resolution set to fixed
- Reviewers changed from Anen Schilling, Travis Scrimshaw to Anne Schilling, Travis Scrimshaw
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:17 Changed 7 years ago by
The following doctest really takes too long:
********************************************************************** File "devel/sage/sage/combinat/crystals/generalized_young_walls.py", line 850, in sage.combinat.crystals.generalized_young_walls.HighestWeightCrystalOfGYW.__init__ Failed example: TestSuite(YLa).run() # long time Test ran for 203.43 s **********************************************************************
It is by far the longest doctest in all of Sage. Can this test be made faster? Or removed in the worst case?
comment:18 Changed 7 years ago by
Hey Jeroen,
I'm working on it right now. I'll let you know what I find.
Best,
Travis
Changing dependencies to make #14402 a dependency of this ticket.