-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 528
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
Enhance symmetry handling for tensors #28813
Comments
comment:1
The symmetries of the Riemann tensor are described by a Young symmetrizer which, as far as I understand, is the same as doing a symmetrization and an antisymmetrization. These are described by a Young tableau rather than a group action on the index set. This involves non-canonical choices though, e.g. whether to first symmetrize or antisymmetrize, but as long as one sticks to a convention this should not be a problem. It would be nice if Sage kept track of such symmetries and exploited these, but this might be too involved for now, or at least I would not know where to start with this. |
comment:2
Indeed the Riemann tensor is an element of I would say both view points are valid, I guess you suggest of more "linear group representation" approach while I was considering at first only symmetries on indices. Symmetries are very easy to implement since #28787 does something very close by implementing I don't know enough about how group actions work in sage to form an enlightened opinion. |
comment:3
Replying to @LBrunswic:
Absolutely. When I commented on #28784, I was mainly thinking of multi-symmetrizations like you implemented them, but generalizing this to group actions should indeed be straightforward. As far as I know, this just requires defining a subclass of |
comment:4
"generalizing this to group actions should indeed be straightforward" To clariry, by "group actions", you mean linear group actions on the underlying vector space (like one can interpret while talking about Young symetrizers) or a simple group action one the indices? |
comment:5
Replying to @LBrunswic:
Sorry, I meant group actions on the indices by subgroups of the symmetric group, as you suggested in the ticket description. |
comment:6
Thx for the clarification. If you don't mind, I would like to wait for the eventual positive review of #28787 before working in this ticket since I expect dependancies. |
comment:7
Ticket retargeted after milestone closed |
comment:8
Batch modifying tickets that will likely not be ready for 9.1, based on a review of the ticket title, branch/review status, and last modification date. |
comment:9
See also: #30276 Phased permutation groups |
comment:11
Setting new milestone based on a cursory review of ticket status, priority, and last modification date. |
Current implementation of symmetries has limited handling of symmetries that exclude for instance the symmetries of the Riemann tensor.
One would naturally expect:
To be able to (anti)symmetries a tensor to obtain general symmetries i.e. obtain via the action of an abritrary subgroup of the SymmetricGroup acting on indices. This should be possible both in index notation _add_ method for tensors with indices #28787 or via the methods {{symmetrize}} or {{antisymmetrize}}.
To be able to check easily the symmetries of a tensor
To declare symmetries of a tensor so that they are enforced during declaration on subsequent manipulations
To exploit such symmetries to accelerate computations
CC: @mwageringel @egourgoulhon
Component: linear algebra
Keywords: tensor, symmetries, tensor with indices, permutation group
Author: Léo Brunswic
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28813
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: