2020-06-08 20:47:44 +0100 | commented question | Why is the GU(n,q) package the way it is? So from the documentation I found here: https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/refe... It looks like you can change the invariant form, but I tried this and Sage just yells at me saying that 'invariant_form" is an unexpected keyword argument, even if I copy and paste the exact code used there. |

2020-06-04 22:13:17 +0100 | received badge | ● Editor (source) |

2020-06-04 22:11:48 +0100 | asked a question | Why is the GU(n,q) package the way it is? So I would love to utilize the unitary group feature in Sage; however, it does not seem like Sage defines this group in the standard way that I have seen, namely $n\times n$ matrices over the finite field $\mathbb F_{q^2}$ such that $U^* U = I$, where $U^*$ is the transpose of the matrix in which each entry of $U$ is raised to the $q$ power. For some weird reason it appears as though sage uses the antitranspose instead of the traditional transpose operation to define unitary matrices, since the following matrix, for example, is included: \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1\\ 1 & 1 \end{bmatrix} Does anyone know why this is and how I can easily rectify my computations so these matrices still preserve the Hermitian form $\langle x,x \rangle = x^*x$? |

2018-09-14 11:39:07 +0100 | received badge | ● Student (source) |

2018-09-14 09:46:08 +0100 | asked a question | Why are my plots printing out of order? Here is my code: I know that the plots are printing correctly, they are just out of order for some reason. Any ideas? Also, I know this is a terrible way to plot this. I wanted to use: but that doesn't seem to be working (it just gives me the zero function), so if you have any suggestions for that as well, that would be great. Thank you. |

Copyright Sage, 2010. Some rights reserved under creative commons license. Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.