# Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #20469, comment 8

Ignore:
Timestamp:
07/12/16 23:28:31 (5 years ago)
Comment:

### Legend:

Unmodified
 v1 I have been through your code and fixed the recursion issue. It was actually an infinite recursion loop. The problem was that as the terms in the products ....T_i L_k... were being put into standard form "letter-by-letter" (so changing the previous expression to \sum ... L_m T_j...) you sometimes ended up going around in circles by pushing a T_i past an L_k that then created a large power of some L_m that, when reduced, got you back to the previous situation. I have rewritten the product_on_basis code to avoid this, so I'm afraid that I've replaced this section of your code. The product code is now less recursive with terms largely being rewritten into standard form "in place". On top of this I proved a formula for the expansion of L_k^m tat, embarrassingly, I later found in one of my papers. This was my first guess for improving the multiplication issues but once I'd made this change I discovered the recursion loop. The other main change is that I changed L_k to q**{1-k}*L_k because this renormalisation is what is normally used in the literature as it works better with the combinatorics. On top of this I proved a formula for the expansion of L_k^m that, embarrassingly, I later found in one of my papers. This was my first guess for improving the multiplication issues but once I'd made this change I discovered the recursion loop. The other main change is that I rescaled L_k to q**{1-k}*L_k, in [AK] notation, because this renormalisation is what is normally used in the literature as it works better with the combinatorics. I have made a start at adding the documentation.  As a result of e rescaling of the L_k's quite a lot of doc-tests are currently failing, being off by the corresponding powers of q - I am happy to fix these but I left them in at this stage so that you can compare if you wish. I am also happy to fill out the documentation as I know this area quite well. I have made a start at adding the documentation.  As a result of the rescaling of the L_k's quite a lot of doc-tests are currently failing, being off by the corresponding power of q. I am happy to fix these. I left them in only so that you can compare if you wish. I am also happy to fill out the documentation as I know this area quite well. Other issues that we could think about are: - whether to allow the two parameter version: (T_i-q1)(T_i+q2)=0. robably quite painful as all of the product formulas will change - whether to implement the degenerate algebras. This might be easy as it could be done as a derived class with slightly different _product_LTwTv, _product_Tw_L, and _Li_power methods) - I think having a slightly shorter _repr_ string would be a good idea: Ariki-Koike algebra of rank 5 and parameters q,u0,u2,u3 is enough I think - implementing other bases? This is probably best left for another ticket...especially as I think that the realisations code requires that the same indexing sets be used - whether to allow the two parameter version: (T_i-q1)(T_i+q2)=0. Probably quite painful as all of the product formulas will change - whether to implement the degenerate algebras. This might be easy as it could be done as a derived class with slightly different _product_LTwTv, _product_Tw_L, and _Li_power methods - I think having a slightly shorter _repr_ string would be a good idea: Ariki-Koike algebra of rank 5 with parameters q,u0,u2,u3 is enough I think - implementing other bases? This is probably best left for another ticket...especially as I think that the realisations code currently requires that the same indexing sets be used(?) Any way, I think that the code now works. Please have a look and let me know what you think. Happy to be a reviewer or coauthor on the ticket as you think best.