Sage: Ticket #6588: Categories for root systems and many misc improvements
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588
<p>
New Features:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">- Extended weight lattice/space for affine types
- coxeter_matrix and coxeter_diagram (for crystallographic types)
- Embeddings of the root lattice/space in root lattice realizations
- Embeddings of the weight lattice/space in weight lattice realizations
- Partial conversion from the root space to the root lattice
- Iterator for any Coxeter group, and weak order ideals thereof
- Facade option for weak_poset's and bruhat_poset's of finite coxeter groups
- weak_poset's of finite coxeter groups are lattices; added link weak_lattice -> weak_poset
(courtesy of Christian Stump)
- Enumerated set for grassmannian elements, and is_grasmmannian test
- Added method register_as_conversion to morphisms
</pre><p>
Refactoring:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">- RootLatticeRealization and WeightLatticeRealization are now categories
- Use abstract_methods where appropriate
- Cleanup of an_element
- to_coroot_lattice_morphism: renamed to to_coroot_lattice_space, and
moved from RootLatticeRealization to RootSpace (it does not make
sense for, e.g., the weight lattice).
- Moved the implementation of associated_coroot in root_lattice_realization to root_space where it belongs
</pre><p>
Doc, tests and bug fixes:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">- 100% doctests on sage.combinat.root_system, except for weyl_group and weyl_characters
- 100% doctests on CoxeterGroups
- Add most modules in sage.combinat.root_system to the reference manual and improved the quickref
- Misc doc fixes in the above modules
- Add minimal documentation to AffineWeylGroups
- Added systematic tests for associated_coroot
- Fixed further missing features revealed by this test:
- reducible Cartan types were not seen as finite/simply laced/crystallographic as appropriate
- symmetrizer needed to be generalized to reducible cartan types (including D2)
- the relabelling for reducible cartan types was broken for affine types
- More tests for scalar products
- Added systematic consistency check between the simple_root and simple_roots methods
- same thing for fundamental_weight and fundamental_weights
- Fixed a SL vs GL glitch when obtaining simple roots for reducible cartan types revealed by the above
- Fixed imports (extraneous ones, and a missing one reported by M. Shimozono and others)
</pre><p>
Apply: <a class="attachment" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/attachment/ticket/6588/trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt.patch" title="Attachment 'trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt.patch' in Ticket #6588">trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt.patch</a><a class="trac-rawlink" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/raw-attachment/ticket/6588/trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt.patch" title="Download"></a>
</p>
en-usSagehttps://trac.sagemath.org/chrome/site/logo_sagemath_trac.png
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588
Trac 1.1.6nthieryMon, 20 Feb 2012 17:47:00 GMTcc, description changed; author, dependencies, upstream set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:1
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:1
<ul>
<li><strong>cc</strong>
<em>mshimo@…</em> added
</li>
<li><strong>author</strong>
set to <em>Nicolas M. Thiéry</em>
</li>
<li><strong>dependencies</strong>
set to <em>#10963, #10817</em>
</li>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/6588?action=diff&version=1">diff</a>)
</li>
<li><strong>upstream</strong>
set to <em>N/A</em>
</li>
</ul>
TicketnthieryTue, 21 Feb 2012 08:00:46 GMTdescription, summary changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:2
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:2
<ul>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/6588?action=diff&version=2">diff</a>)
</li>
<li><strong>summary</strong>
changed from <em>Root systems: categorification</em> to <em>Categories for root systems</em>
</li>
</ul>
TicketnthieryTue, 21 Feb 2012 23:26:19 GMTdescription changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:3
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:3
<ul>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/6588?action=diff&version=3">diff</a>)
</li>
</ul>
TicketnthierySat, 25 Feb 2012 00:43:30 GMTstatus changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:4
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:4
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>new</em> to <em>needs_review</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
The updated patch adds many missing doctests, and improves coxeter diagrams. It's probably close to completion, up to fixing some potentially failing doctests.
</p>
TicketnthierySat, 25 Feb 2012 00:50:57 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:5
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:5
<p>
Beside, I commuted it up the Sage-Combinat queue. In principle, there should not be other dependencies than the listed ones.
</p>
TicketnthierySat, 25 Feb 2012 00:55:06 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:6
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:6
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:4" title="Comment 4">nthiery</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
The updated patch adds many missing doctests, and improves coxeter diagrams. It's probably close to completion, up to fixing some potentially failing doctests.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
There are indeed a couple minor ones:
</p>
<p>
<a class="ext-link" href="http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/nthiery/trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt.patch-testlog"><span class="icon"></span>http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/nthiery/trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt.patch-testlog</a>
</p>
<p>
Note: that's with the following patches applied on 5.0.beta5:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">trac_12476-lattice_join_matrix_speedup-fh.patch
trac_9469-category-membership_without_arguments-nt.patch
trac_10603-union_enumset_elconstr_fix-fh.patch
trac_12528_free_module-optimize-nt.patch
trac_10817-generalized_associahedra-cs.patch
trac_10817-generalized_associahedra-review-nt.patch
trac_12078-see_also-fh.patch
trac_9128-intersphinx_python_database-fh.patch
trac_9128-sphinx_links_all-fh.patch
trac_12527-fraction_field-is_exact_optimization-nt.patch
trac_12510-nonzero_equal_consistency-fh.patch
trac_12536-linear_extensions-as.patch
trac_12518-enumerated_set_from_iterator-vd.patch
trac_11880.patch
trac_11880-graph_classes-review-nt.patch
trac_7980-multiple-realizations-nt.patch
trac_7980-multiple-realizations-review-nt.patch
trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt.patch
</pre><p>
Off for skiing :-)
</p>
TicketnthierySat, 25 Feb 2012 01:18:00 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:7
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:7
<p>
I fixed the doctests failures due to this patch. Most of them where due to the fact that affine weyl groups are iterable now, which gives a nicer an_element on any free module thereupon.
</p>
<p>
The other doctests failures showing up in the log are related to <a class="closed ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12518" title="enhancement: Enumerated set from iterator (closed: fixed)">#12518</a> (or to the ISGCI patch, but that's because I did not upload the appropriate database on my test server).
</p>
<p>
The review can start!
</p>
TicketnthieryMon, 05 Mar 2012 21:40:53 GMTdependencies, description changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:8
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:8
<ul>
<li><strong>dependencies</strong>
changed from <em>#10963, #10817</em> to <em>#10817</em>
</li>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/6588?action=diff&version=8">diff</a>)
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Patch updated after a bug report by Mark; see end of patch description
</p>
TicketnthieryThu, 08 Mar 2012 13:09:31 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:9
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:9
<p>
Upon popular demand, extended weight lattice/spaces are now implemented.
</p>
TicketaschillingFri, 09 Mar 2012 20:07:48 GMTreviewer set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:10
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:10
<ul>
<li><strong>reviewer</strong>
set to <em>Anne Schilling, Mark Shimozono</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Hi Nicolas,
</p>
<p>
Impressive patch! Thanks for working on this.
Here are some first comments:
</p>
<ul><li>In /sage/categories/affine_weyl_groups.py there is a new import
</li></ul><p>
from sage.categories.infinite_enumerated_sets import <a class="missing wiki">InfiniteEnumeratedSets?</a>
which is not used. Please either remove this line or add <a class="missing wiki">InfiniteEnumeratedSets?</a>
in the class (which is probably preferable).
</p>
<ul><li>In /sage/categories/affine_weyl_groups.py please add a <code>TestSuite(s).run()</code> doctest.
</li></ul><ul><li>I am not sure this is related to the patch, but there are some
</li></ul><p>
strange methods in /sage/categories/coxeter_groups.py without doctests:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
@abstract_method(optional = True)
def has_right_descent(self, i):
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
"""
Returns whether i is a right descent of self.
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>
# EXAMPLES::
#
# sage:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
"""
</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>
def has_left_descent(self, i):
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
"""
Returns whether <code>i</code> is a left descent of self.
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>
This default implementation uses that a left descent of
<code>w</code> is a right descent of <code>w^{-1}</code>.
"""
return (~self).has_right_descent(i)
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>
Should has_left_descent also be an abstract_method? Or is that implicit through
has_right_descent?
</p>
<ul><li>Why is the cateogry <a class="missing wiki">RootLatticeRealization?</a> in
</li></ul><p>
/sage/combinat/root_system/root_lattice_realization.py
here and not in categories (if it is a category as specified in the docstring)?
</p>
<p>
The same question holds for <a class="missing wiki">WeightLatticeRealizations?</a>(Category_over_base_ring)
in /sage/combinat/root_system/weight_lattice_realization.py.
</p>
<ul><li>When using the extended weight lattice, the list of fundamental weights
</li></ul><p>
does not include <code>\delta</code>. On the other hand it is possible to input
<code>\delta</code> into the method fundamental_weight. This seems a little inconsistent.
</p>
<pre class="wiki"> sage: Q = RootSystem(['A', 3, 1]).weight_lattice(extended = True); Q
Extended weight lattice of the Root system of type ['A', 3, 1]
sage: Q.fundamental_weights()
Finite family {0: Lambda[0], 1: Lambda[1], 2: Lambda[2], 3: Lambda[3]}
sage: Q.fundamental_weight('delta')
delta
</pre><p>
Also, I posted a first reviewer's patch on sage-combinat with mostly just
trivial changes. Please fold it if you are satisfied.
</p>
<p>
Thanks!
</p>
<p>
Anne
</p>
TicketnthierySat, 10 Mar 2012 12:04:44 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:11
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:11
<p>
Thanks much Anne for your detailed review!
</p>
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:10" title="Comment 10">aschilling</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<ul><li>In /sage/categories/affine_weyl_groups.py there is a new import
</li></ul><p>
from sage.categories.infinite_enumerated_sets import <a class="missing wiki">InfiniteEnumeratedSets?</a>
which is not used. Please either remove this line or add <a class="missing wiki">InfiniteEnumeratedSets?</a>
in the class (which is probably preferable).
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Good point. Done!
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<ul><li>In /sage/categories/affine_weyl_groups.py please add a <code>TestSuite(s).run()</code> doctest.
</li></ul></blockquote>
<p>
Done.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<ul><li>I am not sure this is related to the patch, but there are some
</li></ul><p>
strange methods in /sage/categories/coxeter_groups.py without doctests:
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
<a class="missing wiki">CoxeterGroups?</a> is now 100% doctested.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Should has_left_descent also be an abstract_method? Or is that implicit through
has_right_descent?
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
There is a default implementation for this method, so it's not abstract. Indeed, it would be nice to track such dependencies in the documentation; but we don't have the infrastructure for that.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<ul><li>Why is the cateogry <a class="missing wiki">RootLatticeRealization?</a> in
</li></ul><p>
/sage/combinat/root_system/root_lattice_realization.py
here and not in categories (if it is a category as specified in the docstring)?
</p>
<p>
The same question holds for <a class="missing wiki">WeightLatticeRealizations?</a>(Category_over_base_ring)
in /sage/combinat/root_system/weight_lattice_realization.py.
</p>
<ul><li>When using the extended weight lattice, the list of fundamental weights
</li></ul><p>
does not include <code>\delta</code>. On the other hand it is possible to input
<code>\delta</code> into the method fundamental_weight. This seems a little
inconsistent.
</p>
<pre class="wiki"> sage: Q = RootSystem(['A', 3, 1]).weight_lattice(extended = True); Q
Extended weight lattice of the Root system of type ['A', 3, 1]
sage: Q.fundamental_weights()
Finite family {0: Lambda[0], 1: Lambda[1], 2: Lambda[2], 3: Lambda[3]}
sage: Q.fundamental_weight('delta')
delta
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
More on those after lunch!
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Also, I posted a first reviewer's patch on sage-combinat with mostly just
trivial changes. Please fold it if you are satisfied.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Folded in! There is a new reviewer's patch on the patch server.
</p>
<p>
Cheers,
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
Nicolas
</p>
</blockquote>
TicketnthierySun, 11 Mar 2012 09:44:56 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:12
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:12
<blockquote class="citation">
<ul><li>Why is the cateogry <a class="missing wiki">RootLatticeRealization?</a> in
</li></ul><p>
/sage/combinat/root_system/root_lattice_realization.py
here and not in categories (if it is a category as specified in the docstring)?
</p>
<p>
The same question holds for <a class="missing wiki">WeightLatticeRealizations?</a>(Category_over_base_ring)
in /sage/combinat/root_system/weight_lattice_realization.py.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Yeah, we had a similar discussion for the crystal categories and the
categories for Symmetric Functions and friends. And there is a non
trivial borderline to set.
</p>
<p>
On one hand, we have general categories (like Groups, Algebras, ...)
which are likely to get used in several Sage modules. Also, they name
a well-known area of mathematics; so it's natural to import them by
default in the interpreter, if not just as an entry point.
</p>
<p>
On the other hand we have categories that are rather specific to a
Sage module, if not just implementation details. So it's good to keep
them in this module, in particular to be as close as close as possible
from the other sources of that module.
</p>
<p>
<a class="missing wiki">CoxeterGroups?</a> clearly fits the first case (most mathematicians have
heard of them; this category is used by <a class="missing wiki">WeylGroup?</a> (in
sage.combinat.root_system) and by <a class="missing wiki">SymmetricGroup?</a> (in sage.groups).
</p>
<p>
The categories for symmetric functions are basically implementation
details and fits in the second case. Anyway, <a class="missing wiki">SymmetricFunctions?</a> is
already a good entry point.
</p>
<p>
Crystals are only implemented in sage.combinat.crystals (so far). But
this names an area of mathematics. So this fits a bit more the first
case.
</p>
<p>
<a class="missing wiki">RootLatticeRealizations?</a> and <a class="missing wiki">WeightLatticeRealizations?</a> seem rather
specific. So this fits a bit more the second case.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<ul><li>When using the extended weight lattice, the list of fundamental weights
</li></ul><p>
does not include <code>\delta</code>. On the other hand it is possible to input
<code>\delta</code> into the method fundamental_weight. This seems a little
inconsistent.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Yeah, this abuse is documented in "fundamental_weight". Basically, we
need a function that describes the embedding of the basis elements of
the (extended) weight lattice. That's almost what fundamental_weight
does, and I did not have a good alternative name. So I abused
fundamental_weight to do just a bit more that its natural job.
Anyway, we currently only have a single implementation of
<a class="missing wiki">WeightLatticeRealizations?</a> in the affine case, so it's very localized,
and easy to change in the future if we come up with a good name
(unless you have one!).
</p>
<p>
Let me know if you are ok with the above and with my reviewer's patch.
If yes, I'll fold the patches, reindent properly
root_lattice_realization.py and weight_lattice_realization.py, and add
a 's' at the end of those files (I haven't done those yet to keep the
diff meaningful). Then, the patch will be good to go.
</p>
<p>
For the record, all tests pass on Sage 5.0 beta6, with the following
patches applied:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">trac_10817-generalized_associahedra-cs.patch
trac_12645-fix_rst_markup-sk.patch
trac_9128-intersphinx_python_database-fh.patch
trac_9128-sphinx_links_all-fh.patch
trac_9128-MANIFEST-fh.patch
trac_12527-fraction_field-is_exact_optimization-nt.patch
trac_12510-nonzero_equal_consistency-fh.patch
trac_12536-linear_extensions-as.patch
element_compare_consistency-fh.patch
trac_11880-isgci-all_in_one-nc.patch
trac_11880-isgci-more-review-nt.patch
trac_7980-multiple-realizations-nt.patch
trac_7980-multiple-realizations-review-nt.patch
trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt.patch
trac_6588-categories-root_systems-review-nt.patch
</pre><p>
Cheers,
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
Nicolas
</p>
</blockquote>
TicketdavidloefflerSun, 11 Mar 2012 10:37:25 GMTstatus, reviewer changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:13
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:13
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>needs_review</em> to <em>needs_work</em>
</li>
<li><strong>reviewer</strong>
changed from <em>Anne Schilling, Mark Shimozono</em> to <em>Anne Schilling, Mark Shimozono, PatchBot</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Fails doctests on Sage 5.0.beta7:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">sage -t -long devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/root_system/weight_space.py
**********************************************************************
File "/storage/masiao/sage-5.0.beta7/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/root_system/weight_space.py", line 126:
sage: Q.null_root(0)[index]
Exception raised:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/storage/masiao/sage-5.0.beta7/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test
self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags)
File "/storage/masiao/sage-5.0.beta7/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example
OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags)
File "/storage/masiao/sage-5.0.beta7/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example
compileflags, 1) in test.globs
File "<doctest __main__.example_1[17]>", line 1, in <module>
Q.null_root(Integer(0))[index]###line 126:
sage: Q.null_root(0)[index]
TypeError: __call__() takes exactly 0 positional arguments (1 given)
**********************************************************************
</pre><p>
(The patchbot found this, but I also reproduced it by hand)
</p>
TicketnthierySun, 11 Mar 2012 10:43:26 GMTstatus changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:14
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:14
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>needs_work</em> to <em>needs_review</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:13" title="Comment 13">davidloeffler</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Fails doctests on Sage 5.0.beta7:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">sage -t -long devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/root_system/weight_space.py
**********************************************************************
File "/storage/masiao/sage-5.0.beta7/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/root_system/weight_space.py", line 126:
sage: Q.null_root(0)[index]
Exception raised:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/storage/masiao/sage-5.0.beta7/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test
self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags)
File "/storage/masiao/sage-5.0.beta7/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example
OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags)
File "/storage/masiao/sage-5.0.beta7/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example
compileflags, 1) in test.globs
File "<doctest __main__.example_1[17]>", line 1, in <module>
Q.null_root(Integer(0))[index]###line 126:
sage: Q.null_root(0)[index]
TypeError: __call__() takes exactly 0 positional arguments (1 given)
**********************************************************************
</pre><p>
(The patchbot found this, but I also reproduced it by hand)
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Sorry, already fixed on the Sage-Combinat queue where the review is occuring. I'll delete the patch here for the moment so that others don't waste time reviewing an outdated version.
</p>
<p>
Thanks though for the report!
</p>
TicketnthierySun, 11 Mar 2012 10:44:38 GMTdescription changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:15
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:15
<ul>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/6588?action=diff&version=15">diff</a>)
</li>
</ul>
TicketaschillingMon, 12 Mar 2012 04:38:38 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:16
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:16
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:12" title="Comment 12">nthiery</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<blockquote>
<p>
Thanks much Anne for your detailed review!
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>
You are welcome. I hope you will return the favor for trac_12536-linear_extensions-as.patch!
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<blockquote class="citation">
<ul><li>Why is the cateogry <a class="missing wiki">RootLatticeRealization?</a> in
</li></ul><p>
/sage/combinat/root_system/root_lattice_realization.py
here and not in categories (if it is a category as specified in the docstring)?
</p>
<p>
The same question holds for <a class="missing wiki">WeightLatticeRealizations?</a>(Category_over_base_ring)
in /sage/combinat/root_system/weight_lattice_realization.py.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Yeah, we had a similar discussion for the crystal categories and the
categories for Symmetric Functions and friends. And there is a non
trivial borderline to set.
</p>
<p>
On one hand, we have general categories (like Groups, Algebras, ...)
which are likely to get used in several Sage modules. Also, they name
a well-known area of mathematics; so it's natural to import them by
default in the interpreter, if not just as an entry point.
</p>
<p>
On the other hand we have categories that are rather specific to a
Sage module, if not just implementation details. So it's good to keep
them in this module, in particular to be as close as close as possible
from the other sources of that module.
</p>
<p>
<a class="missing wiki">CoxeterGroups?</a> clearly fits the first case (most mathematicians have
heard of them; this category is used by <a class="missing wiki">WeylGroup?</a> (in
sage.combinat.root_system) and by <a class="missing wiki">SymmetricGroup?</a> (in sage.groups).
</p>
<p>
The categories for symmetric functions are basically implementation
details and fits in the second case. Anyway, <a class="missing wiki">SymmetricFunctions?</a> is
already a good entry point.
</p>
<p>
Crystals are only implemented in sage.combinat.crystals (so far). But
this names an area of mathematics. So this fits a bit more the first
case.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
No, there is a lot of crystal code in /sage/categories: crystals, finite_crystals, highest_weight_crystals, ....
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<blockquote class="citation">
<ul><li>When using the extended weight lattice, the list of fundamental weights
</li></ul><p>
does not include <code>\delta</code>. On the other hand it is possible to input
<code>\delta</code> into the method fundamental_weight. This seems a little
inconsistent.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Yeah, this abuse is documented in "fundamental_weight". Basically, we
need a function that describes the embedding of the basis elements of
the (extended) weight lattice. That's almost what fundamental_weight
does, and I did not have a good alternative name. So I abused
fundamental_weight to do just a bit more that its natural job.
Anyway, we currently only have a single implementation of
<a class="missing wiki">WeightLatticeRealizations?</a> in the affine case, so it's very localized,
and easy to change in the future if we come up with a good name
(unless you have one!).
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Why can't fundamental_weights when "extended" is set also include <code>delta</code>? This would at least fit with the notational abuse of fundamental_weight.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Let me know if you are ok with the above and with my reviewer's patch.
If yes, I'll fold the patches, reindent properly
root_lattice_realization.py and weight_lattice_realization.py, and add
a 's' at the end of those files (I haven't done those yet to keep the
diff meaningful). Then, the patch will be good to go.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I also wrote another very small reviewer's patch that you can fold in.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
For the record, all tests pass on Sage 5.0 beta6, with the following
patches applied:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">trac_10817-generalized_associahedra-cs.patch
trac_12645-fix_rst_markup-sk.patch
trac_9128-intersphinx_python_database-fh.patch
trac_9128-sphinx_links_all-fh.patch
trac_9128-MANIFEST-fh.patch
trac_12527-fraction_field-is_exact_optimization-nt.patch
trac_12510-nonzero_equal_consistency-fh.patch
trac_12536-linear_extensions-as.patch
element_compare_consistency-fh.patch
trac_11880-isgci-all_in_one-nc.patch
trac_11880-isgci-more-review-nt.patch
trac_7980-multiple-realizations-nt.patch
trac_7980-multiple-realizations-review-nt.patch
trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt.patch
trac_6588-categories-root_systems-review-nt.patch
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
That's good!
</p>
<p>
Cheers,
</p>
<p>
Anne
</p>
TicketnthieryMon, 12 Mar 2012 08:12:55 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:17
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:17
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:16" title="Comment 16">aschilling</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
You are welcome. I hope you will return the favor for trac_12536-linear_extensions-as.patch!
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I sure will, soon!
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Crystals are only implemented in sage.combinat.crystals (so far). But
this names an area of mathematics. So this fits a bit more the first
case.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
No, there is a lot of crystal code in /sage/categories: crystals, finite_crystals, highest_weight_crystals, ....
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I meant: the crystals themselves (<a class="missing wiki">CrystalOfLetter?</a>, KR, ...) are all in
implemented in sage.combinat.crystals.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Why can't fundamental_weights when "extended" is set also include
<code>delta</code>? This would at least fit with the notational abuse of
fundamental_weight.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Because we want to do things like:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
sage: x in self.fundamental_weights()
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
sage: all(L.some_property() for L in self.fundamental_weights())
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
So adding delta would change the semantic of fundamental_weights.
Whereas the current abuse of fundamental_weight can't break any code.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
I also wrote another very small reviewer's patch that you can fold in.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I don't see it on the queue; did you push?
</p>
<p>
Thanks!
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
Nicolas
</p>
</blockquote>
TicketaschillingMon, 12 Mar 2012 14:26:13 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:18
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:18
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:17" title="Comment 17">nthiery</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:16" title="Comment 16">aschilling</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
You are welcome. I hope you will return the favor for trac_12536-linear_extensions-as.patch!
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I sure will, soon!
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Thanks.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<blockquote class="citation">
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Crystals are only implemented in sage.combinat.crystals (so far). But
this names an area of mathematics. So this fits a bit more the first
case.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
No, there is a lot of crystal code in /sage/categories: crystals, finite_crystals, highest_weight_crystals, ....
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I meant: the crystals themselves (<a class="missing wiki">CrystalOfLetter?</a>, KR, ...) are all in
implemented in sage.combinat.crystals.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
But these are not categories, they are classes. In your case, a cateogory is in
/sage/combinat/root_systems/
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Why can't fundamental_weights when "extended" is set also include
<code>delta</code>? This would at least fit with the notational abuse of
fundamental_weight.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Because we want to do things like:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
sage: x in self.fundamental_weights()
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
sage: all(L.some_property() for L in self.fundamental_weights())
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
So adding delta would change the semantic of fundamental_weights.
Whereas the current abuse of fundamental_weight can't break any code.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
How about self.fundamental_weights(extended = True) with default extended = False?
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
I also wrote another very small reviewer's patch that you can fold in.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I don't see it on the queue; did you push?
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Sorry, I forgot to push. It should be there now.
</p>
<p>
Best,
</p>
<p>
Anne
</p>
TicketnthieryMon, 12 Mar 2012 22:15:36 GMTattachment set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588
<ul>
<li><strong>attachment</strong>
set to <em>trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt-before-reindentation.patch</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
This contains the user-readable diff. Do not apply!
</p>
TicketnthieryMon, 12 Mar 2012 22:19:30 GMTdescription changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:19
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:19
<ul>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/6588?action=diff&version=19">diff</a>)
</li>
</ul>
TicketnthieryMon, 12 Mar 2012 22:22:37 GMTdescription, summary changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:20
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:20
<ul>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/6588?action=diff&version=20">diff</a>)
</li>
<li><strong>summary</strong>
changed from <em>Categories for root systems</em> to <em>Categories for root systems and many misc improvements</em>
</li>
</ul>
TicketnthieryMon, 12 Mar 2012 22:34:24 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:21
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:21
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:18" title="Comment 18">aschilling</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
But these are not categories, they are classes. In your case, a cateogory is in
/sage/combinat/root_systems/
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Yes: unlike for crystals, and like for symmetric functions (well for
NCSF actually; the categorification of symmetric functions is yet to
be done), I want to keep the categories close to the classes. As I
said, it's borderline, but it feels better to me this way.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
How about self.fundamental_weights(extended = True) with default extended = False?
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Well, since it's an abuse, and one that we might want to get rid of,
I'd rather not abuse yet another function. Unless you have a natural
use case for this notation? (for the extended weight lattice, that's
just self.basis()).
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Sorry, I forgot to push.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Given how many times I played that gag to you, I am not going
to throw the first rock :-)
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
It should be there now.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Yes, thanks! I have folded together all patches and posted them
here. I also did the reindentation and renaming *_lattice_realization
-> *_lattice_realizations. On my side, the patch is good to go.
</p>
<p>
Cheers,
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
Nicolas
</p>
</blockquote>
TicketaschillingTue, 13 Mar 2012 13:42:06 GMTstatus changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:22
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:22
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>needs_review</em> to <em>positive_review</em>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote class="citation">
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
How about self.fundamental_weights(extended = True) with default extended = False?
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Well, since it's an abuse, and one that we might want to get rid of,
I'd rather not abuse yet another function. Unless you have a natural
use case for this notation? (for the extended weight lattice, that's
just self.basis()).
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Ok, since this is in self.basis() I am satisfied.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Yes, thanks! I have folded together all patches and posted them
here. I also did the reindentation and renaming *_lattice_realization
-> *_lattice_realizations. On my side, the patch is good to go.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Ok, thanks! Unless I hear otherwise from Mark, I'll set a positive review.
</p>
<p>
Cheers,
</p>
<p>
Anne
</p>
TicketnthieryTue, 13 Mar 2012 13:53:10 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:23
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:23
<blockquote>
<p>
Good morning Anne!
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:22" title="Comment 22">aschilling</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Ok, thanks! Unless I hear otherwise from Mark, I'll set a positive review.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Yippee!
</p>
<p>
A bunch of patches went into 5.0.beta8 this morning. Maybe this one will follow :-)
</p>
<p>
I am working on the review of <a class="closed ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12536" title="enhancement: Implementation of class for Linear Extensions of a finite Poset (closed: fixed)">#12536</a>.
</p>
<p>
Cheers,
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
Nicolas
</p>
</blockquote>
TicketjdemeyerThu, 15 Mar 2012 20:07:28 GMTreviewer changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:24
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:24
<ul>
<li><strong>reviewer</strong>
changed from <em>Anne Schilling, Mark Shimozono, PatchBot</em> to <em>Anne Schilling, Mark Shimozono</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Let's not anthropomorphize the <a class="missing wiki">PatchBot?</a> :-)
</p>
TicketaschillingFri, 16 Mar 2012 06:01:01 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:25
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:25
<p>
Hi Nicolas,
</p>
<p>
When working on a review for <a class="closed ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12667" title="defect: category root lattice realization issue: infinite loop while trying to ... (closed: fixed)">#12667</a>, I noticed some documentation problems with this patch in root_lattice_realizations. I wrote a review patch on the sage-combinat queue. If you are happy, please fold, repost here and reset the positive review.
</p>
<p>
Best,
</p>
<p>
Anne
</p>
TicketaschillingFri, 16 Mar 2012 06:01:45 GMTstatus changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:26
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:26
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>positive_review</em> to <em>needs_work</em>
</li>
</ul>
TicketnthieryFri, 16 Mar 2012 08:28:50 GMTstatus, description changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:27
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:27
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>needs_work</em> to <em>positive_review</em>
</li>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/6588?action=diff&version=27">diff</a>)
</li>
</ul>
TicketnthieryFri, 16 Mar 2012 08:32:20 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:28
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:28
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:25" title="Comment 25">aschilling</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
When working on a review for <a class="closed ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12667" title="defect: category root lattice realization issue: infinite loop while trying to ... (closed: fixed)">#12667</a>, I noticed some documentation problems with this patch in root_lattice_realizations. I wrote a review patch on the sage-combinat queue. If you are happy, please fold, repost here and reset the positive review.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Good catches. Thanks! Folded.
</p>
<p>
I allowed myself to further add the weight lattice realizations file to the reference manual, and to replace {\vee} by \vee. I also set back \mathbb{N} to \NN, since \NN will be added very soon to the standard Sage macros.
</p>
TicketnthieryFri, 16 Mar 2012 09:59:37 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:29
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:29
<p>
While I was at it, I added all the other missing files in root_system.rst (type_*, ...), and fixed the documentation typos revealled by the compilation. Florent reviewed them. New patch posted.
</p>
TicketnthieryFri, 16 Mar 2012 10:04:15 GMTdescription changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:30
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:30
<ul>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/6588?action=diff&version=30">diff</a>)
</li>
</ul>
TicketjdemeyerFri, 16 Mar 2012 10:06:30 GMTstatus changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:31
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:31
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>positive_review</em> to <em>needs_work</em>
</li>
</ul>
TicketjdemeyerFri, 16 Mar 2012 10:06:48 GMTstatus changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:32
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:32
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>needs_work</em> to <em>needs_review</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
I guess the last patch still needs review?
</p>
TicketnthieryFri, 16 Mar 2012 10:25:22 GMTstatus, reviewer changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:33
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:33
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>needs_review</em> to <em>positive_review</em>
</li>
<li><strong>reviewer</strong>
changed from <em>Anne Schilling, Mark Shimozono</em> to <em>Anne Schilling, Mark Shimozono, Florent Hivert</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
No, I had uploaded the wrong file. The new one is the one that has been checked by Florent.
</p>
<p>
Now it's a very final positive review. Sorry Jeroen for the mess; I hope you were not in the process of applying / testing it!
</p>
TicketaschillingFri, 16 Mar 2012 14:56:05 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:34
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:34
<p>
I am not sure why you replaced \mathcal{N} by \NN since this currently gives a latex error when compiling the documentation:
</p>
<p>
preparing documents... done
WARNING: display latex u'<br />NN': latex exited with error:lattice_realizations
[stderr]
</p>
<p>
[stdout]
This is pdfTeXk, Version 3.1415926-1.40.9 (Web2C 7.5.7)
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
%&-line parsing enabled.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
entering extended mode
(./math.tex
LaTeX2e <2005/12/01>
Babel <v3.8l> and hyphenation patterns for english, usenglishmax, dumylang, noh
yphenation, german-x-2008-06-18, ngerman-x-2008-06-18, ancientgreek, ibycus, ar
abic, basque, bulgarian, catalan, pinyin, coptic, croatian, czech, danish, dutc
h, esperanto, estonian, farsi, finnish, french, galician, german, ngerman, mono
greek, greek, hungarian, icelandic, indonesian, interlingua, irish, italian, la
tin, lithuanian, mongolian, mongolian2a, bokmal, nynorsk, polish, portuguese, r
omanian, russian, sanskrit, serbian, slovak, slovenian, spanish, swedish, turki
sh, ukenglish, ukrainian, uppersorbian, welsh, loaded.
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/article.cls
Document Class: article 2005/09/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX document class
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size12.clo))
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/inputenc.sty
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/utf8.def
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/t1enc.dfu)
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/ot1enc.dfu)
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/omsenc.dfu)))
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsmath/amsmath.sty
For additional information on amsmath, use the `?' option.
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsmath/amstext.sty
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsmath/amsgen.sty))
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsmath/amsbsy.sty)
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsmath/amsopn.sty))
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amscls/amsthm.sty)
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsfonts/amssymb.sty
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsfonts/amsfonts.sty))
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/tools/bm.sty) (./math.aux)
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsfonts/umsa.fd)
(/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsfonts/umsb.fd)
! Undefined control sequence.
<recently read> \NN
l.29 $\NN
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
$
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
[1] (./math.aux) )
(see the transcript file for additional information)
Output written on math.dvi (1 page, 152 bytes).
Transcript written on math.log.
</p>
<p>
Is it allowed to leave such a failure?
</p>
<p>
Thanks,
</p>
<p>
Anne
</p>
TicketnthieryFri, 16 Mar 2012 15:08:52 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:35
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:35
<blockquote>
<p>
Hi Anne:
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:34" title="Comment 34">aschilling</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
I am not sure why you replaced \mathcal{N} by \NN since this currently gives a latex error when compiling the documentation:
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
As I said: <code></code>I also set back \mathbb{N} to \NN, since \NN will be added very soon to the standard Sage macros<em>
</em></p>
<p>
There are lots of other failures like this in the documentation; it's best to progressively get rid of them, but here it's just temporary, so that's good enough. Let's not waste time on having to update this later.
</p>
<p>
Cheers,
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
Nicolas
</p>
</blockquote>
TicketaschillingFri, 16 Mar 2012 15:16:00 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:36
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:36
<p>
Hi Nicolas,
</p>
<p>
Well, one of my patches recently did not get merged until all these failures were rectified. So I thought it was compulsory for all documentation to work.
</p>
<p>
Best,
</p>
<p>
Anne
</p>
TicketnthieryFri, 16 Mar 2012 15:40:15 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:37
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:37
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:36" title="Comment 36">aschilling</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Well, one of my patches recently did not get merged until all these failures were rectified. So I thought it was compulsory for all documentation to work.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
There is at least one other \NN in th sources. Anyway, let's not waste even more time discussing it. Here is the diff with the patch I am about to upload(sorry Jeroen):
</p>
<pre class="wiki">-+ with the coroots are all in `\NN`, which is not
++ with the coroots are all non negative integers, which is not
</pre><p>
I left the positive review; feel free to change.
</p>
TicketjdemeyerSun, 18 Mar 2012 11:08:24 GMTstatus changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:38
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:38
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>positive_review</em> to <em>needs_work</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
This obviously fails on 32-bit systems:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">sage -t "devel/sage/sage/combinat/root_system/dynkin_diagram.py"
**********************************************************************
File "/export/home/buildbot/sage-5.0.beta9/devel/sage/sage/combinat/root_system/dynkin_diagram.py", line 167:
sage: hash(CartanType(['A',3]).dynkin_diagram()) # indirect doctest
Expected:
286820813001824631
Got:
-2127980169
**********************************************************************
</pre>
TicketnthierySun, 18 Mar 2012 17:53:33 GMTstatus changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:39
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:39
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>needs_work</em> to <em>needs_review</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Thanks Jeroen for the report. This should be fixed with the upcoming patch. The diff is:
</p>
<div class="wiki-code"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" class="diff">
<ul class="entries">
<li class="entry">
<h2>
<a>sage/combinat/root_system/dynkin_diagram.py</a>
</h2>
<pre>diff --git a/sage/combinat/root_system/dynkin_diagram.py b/sage/combinat/root_system/dynkin_diagram.py</pre>
<table class="trac-diff inline" summary="Differences" cellspacing="0">
<colgroup><col class="lineno" /><col class="lineno" /><col class="content" /></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th title="File a/sage/combinat/root_system/dynkin_diagram.py">
a
</th>
<th title="File b/sage/combinat/root_system/dynkin_diagram.py">
b
</th>
<td><em> class DynkinDiagram_class(DiGraph, Carta</em> </td>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody class="unmod">
<tr>
<th>165</th><th>165</th><td class="l"><span> EXAMPLES::</span></td>
</tr><tr>
<th>166</th><th>166</th><td class="l"><span></span></td>
</tr><tr>
<th>167</th><th>167</th><td class="l"><span> sage: hash(CartanType(['A',3]).dynkin_diagram()) # indirect doctest</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody><tbody class="mod">
<tr class="first">
<th>168</th><th> </th><td class="l"><span> 286820813001824631<del></del></span></td>
</tr><tr>
<th>169</th><th> </th><td class="l"><span></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th> </th><th>168</th><td class="r"><span> 286820813001824631<ins> # 64-bit</ins></span></td>
</tr><tr class="last">
<th> </th><th>169</th><td class="r"><span> -2127980169 # 32-bit</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody><tbody class="unmod">
<tr>
<th>170</th><th>170</th><td class="l"><span> """</span></td>
</tr><tr>
<th>171</th><th>171</th><td class="l"><span> # Should assert for immutability!</span></td>
</tr><tr>
<th>172</th><th>172</th><td class="l"><span></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</li>
</ul>
</div></div>
TicketjdemeyerMon, 19 Mar 2012 16:08:19 GMTstatus changed; work_issues set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:40
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:40
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>needs_review</em> to <em>needs_work</em>
</li>
<li><strong>work_issues</strong>
set to <em>documentation</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
There is a problem with the documentation. Doing "make doc" after applying this patch gives:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">reading sources... [ 92%] sage/combinat/root_system/weight_lattice_realizations
reading sources... [ 95%] sage/combinat/root_system/weight_space
reading sources... [ 97%] sage/combinat/root_system/weyl_group
reading sources... [100%] sage/structure/parent
<autodoc>:0: ERROR: Inconsistent literal block quoting.
looking for now-outdated files... none found
pickling environment... done
checking consistency... done
preparing documents... done
writing output... [ 2%] categories
writing output... [ 4%] combinat/algebra
writing output... [ 6%] combinat/index
writing output... [ 8%] combinat/root_systems
writing output... [ 10%] index
</pre><p>
Unfortunately, there is no indication which file caused the problem.
</p>
TicketnthieryMon, 19 Mar 2012 20:39:10 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:41
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:41
<p>
Ok, it was in root_lattice_realizations. At this occasion, Anne and myself spotted a couple more doc typos. I am about to upload an updated patch. See :<a class="attachment" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/attachment/ticket/6588/latest_change.patch" title="Attachment 'latest_change.patch' in Ticket #6588">attachment:latest_change.patch</a><a class="trac-rawlink" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/raw-attachment/ticket/6588/latest_change.patch" title="Download"></a> for the changes since last version.
</p>
TicketnthieryMon, 19 Mar 2012 20:41:58 GMTattachment set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588
<ul>
<li><strong>attachment</strong>
set to <em>latest_change.patch</em>
</li>
</ul>
TicketaschillingMon, 19 Mar 2012 21:34:18 GMTstatus changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:42
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:42
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>needs_work</em> to <em>positive_review</em>
</li>
</ul>
TicketjdemeyerWed, 21 Mar 2012 14:13:10 GMTwork_issues deleted
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:43
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:43
<ul>
<li><strong>work_issues</strong>
<em>documentation</em> deleted
</li>
</ul>
TickethivertWed, 21 Mar 2012 18:25:03 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:44
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:44
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
There is at least one other \NN in th sources. Anyway, let's not waste even more time discussing it. Here is the diff with the patch I am about to upload(sorry Jeroen):
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I finished my patch on \NN: this is <a class="closed ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12717" title="defect: Add \NN to standard latex constant, fixes a few glitches in LaTeX/HTML ... (closed: fixed)">#12717</a>
</p>
TicketjdemeyerFri, 23 Mar 2012 13:11:06 GMTattachment set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588
<ul>
<li><strong>attachment</strong>
set to <em>trac_6588-categories-root_systems-nt.patch</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Apply this one (identical to the other, but renames and reindents two files; thus unreadable)
</p>
TicketjdemeyerFri, 23 Mar 2012 13:11:36 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:45
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:45
<p>
Rebased the last patch to sage-5.0.beta9 (there was some trivial fuzz).
</p>
TicketjdemeyerFri, 23 Mar 2012 15:18:56 GMTstatus changed; resolution, merged set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:46
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:46
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>positive_review</em> to <em>closed</em>
</li>
<li><strong>resolution</strong>
set to <em>fixed</em>
</li>
<li><strong>merged</strong>
set to <em>sage-5.0.beta10</em>
</li>
</ul>
TicketnthieryFri, 23 Mar 2012 16:00:06 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:47
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:47
<p>
Yippee! Thanks all for your help getting this in!
</p>
TicketjdemeyerMon, 02 Apr 2012 15:22:30 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:48
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6588#comment:48
<p>
The examples for <code>__cmp__</code> in <code>sage/combinat/root_system/type_dual.py</code> are bad. <a class="closed ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12793" title="defect: Fix __cmp__ tests in sage/combinat/root_system/type_dual.py (closed: fixed)">#12793</a> fixes them, <strong>please review</strong>.
</p>
Ticket