MathGroup Archive 2012

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Symmetrizing function arguments

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg127620] Re: Symmetrizing function arguments
  • From: Sseziwa Mukasa <mukasa at>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 03:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • References: <>

You could just sort the arguments:

h[{a_,b_},{c_,d_},{e_,f_}]:= Your code here...




On Aug 7, 2012, at 3:01 AM, Hauke Reddmann wrote:

> I'd like to define a quasi 6j symbol which has tetrahedron
> symmetry in its 6 arguments. At the moment (I'm a n00b, still :-)
> I use a cheap hack:
> f[a_,b_] := If[a>b,F[a,b],F[b,a]];
> Bingo, f now is commutative and sorts by descending arguments,
> and NOOOOO endless loops. My, am I proud of myself :-)
> Needless to say, using this method to implement the symmetries
> of h[a_,b_,c_,d_,e_,f] is a royal pain in the backside, as you
> see with the hassle needed already for just 3 arguments...
> =
> ...especially considering all the subcases needed when two arguments
> are equal.
> Surely, you can offer a more elegant way? It more or less suffices to
> bring the largest value to position 1 and the second-largest to 2 or 3
> (assume a,b and c,d and e,f are the opponent edges of the tetrahedron),
> but optimal would be if none of the 24 tetrahedron operations gives
> a smaller lexicalic ordering even in the case of equal entries.
> P.S. No, the inbuilt 6j symbol is useless - wrong Lie group :-)
> --
> Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8    fc3a501 at
> Out on deck the dawn arrived
> Your grey sweater oversized
> The rooftops glimmered before our eyes

  • Prev by Date: Re: Symmetrizing function arguments
  • Next by Date: Re: Surface Smoothing
  • Previous by thread: Re: Symmetrizing function arguments
  • Next by thread: Re: Symmetrizing function arguments