Recent content by Akater

Well, that's a decision you better make: I'm certainly less familiar with those structures than you are. I can only acknowledge that I can't make sense of the (obviously incomplete) pieces of your definitions and data that I saw. For example, I have no idea what [FONT=Courier...

I'd gladly look at your definitions but, again, your data structures don't talk to me, and hence definitions don't either, since they're supposed to operate with that obscure data. When I [FONT=Courier New]Import combinedArray from MathML posted here, I get {{{{13}, {15}, {3}}, {{{1, 13}}...

If you really want to describe in words, 1) better say we don't “Apply” [FONT=Courier New]Tuples, but rather “Compose”: In[1] := Apply[Test`Tuples, {a, b, c}] Out[1] = Test`Tuples[a, b, c] In[2] := Compose[Test`Tuples, {a, b, c}] Out[2] = Test`Tuples[{a, b, c}] 2) OTOH, [FONT=Courier...

I've read the description of your problem. Again, I'm not sure if I understand it. For example, there are several “hanging indices” ($g_i$, in both cases — what indexing set does $i$ point to?) It's also not clear why you choose to represent group of units as a product of additive groups, and...

[FONT=Arial]It's still hard to understand what you're trying to do. I don't have much background in finite groups but nevertheless I recommend not keeping your data in boring same-looking lists. Try introducing symbolic objects: orbits, underlying sets of groups, direct products, isomorphisms...

Before we go further, are you aware of Mathematica symbols [FONT=Courier New]AbelianGroup, [FONT=Courier New]GroupGenerators and such?

It's quite unclear what you're trying to achieve. Does this help? [FONT=Courier New]Outer[Intersection, ##, 1]& @@ myList

Your string has issues; check out for backslashes (and maybe dots, if you don't want inexact numerics), for example Once done, try this: [FONT=Courier New]ToExpression[string, TraditionalForm, HoldComplete] /. pow -> Power Worked OK for me.

The reason behind the low performance is probably utilising symbolic manipulations where numerical would suffice. Why would you omit anything? With underscores and := this would be an entirely different definition. The way it's written here it looks alarming for several reasons. Don't...

Sure. I was talking about (supposed) situation when physicist need to multiply them and experience problems with the multiplication operation.

Hello, it is said that physicists sometimes need to multiply two generalized functions (square Dirac delta, for example) which makes little sense from the mathematical viewpoint. Could you please provide some examples where such an issue occurs? Actually, I would be happy to see examples...

Lagrangian mechanics from the geometric viewpoint is described, for example, in Godbillon's Geometrie differentielle et mecanique analytique (I'm not sure if English translation exists at all) and Abraham & Marsden's Foundations of Mechanics, Ch. III.

In this case, proofs themselves are practical examples. That's the point of math courses.

Yes, there are ways to determine weight. For example, Vilenkin does that a couple of times in his Special functions and the theory of group representations.