doc: fix IrreducibleModules description to say 'at most' dim#6337
Conversation
|
@mvanhorn hi there, thanks for your contribution. As per our AI policy,
|
|
@fingolfin Apologies for missing the disclosure up front. This PR was prepared with Claude Code (Anthropic's AI coding assistant): it helped me navigate the grpreps sources, confirm the "at most" semantics via the sibling operation and the InstallOtherMethod comment, and draft the two-line doc change. I reviewed the diff and PR body before opening. Happy to add a disclosure line to the PR description, or to close if you would prefer a non-AI-assisted submission. |
|
It's fine to use AI assistance, just disclose it (e.g. via a |
Closes gap-system#6004. The GAPDoc description for IrreducibleModules claimed the second entry was 'a list of all irreducible modules of G over the field F in dimension dim'. The actual behaviour (lib/grpreps.gi:45) is to return all irreducible constituents of dimension at most dim, matching: - The sibling AbsolutelyIrreducibleModules docstring in the same file (lib/grpreps.gd:18-23), which already says 'dimension at most dim'. - The InstallOtherMethod at lib/grpreps.gi:314 titled 'Supply no dimension limit', which delegates to IrreducibleModules(G, F, 0) — only makes sense if 0 means 'no upper bound', not 'modules of dimension exactly 0'. Updated the description to say 'of dimension at most <dim>', matching the sibling operation, and added a one-line note that passing 0 imposes no bound (already the implementation behavior, previously only discoverable by reading the code). Co-authored-by: Claude (Anthropic AI) <noreply@anthropic.com>
b6f4ad2 to
b5ec59c
Compare
|
@fingolfin Done. Amended commit b5ec59c with |
|
Thanks for landing the doc fix, @fingolfin. |
The GAPDoc description for IrreducibleModules claimed the second entry was 'a list of all irreducible modules of G over the field F in dimension dim'. The actual behaviour is to return all irreducible constituents of dimension at most dim, matching: Updated the description to match this, and also added a one-line note that passing 0 imposes no bound (already the implementation behavior, previously only discoverable by reading the code). Co-authored-by: Matt Van Horn <455140+mvanhorn@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude (Anthropic AI) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Closes #6004.
Problem
The GAPDoc description for
IrreducibleModulesatlib/grpreps.gd:49-53claimed the second return entry was:The actual behaviour is to return all irreducible constituents whose dimension is at most
dim, same as the sibling operationAbsolutelyIrreducibleModules.Evidence
Two independent confirmations in the same file / codebase:
Sibling operation documents it correctly.
AbsolutelyIrreducibleModulesatlib/grpreps.gd:18-23already says "can be realized over the finite field F and have dimension at most dim". Both operations share the same(G, F, dim)signature and are implemented side by side; the description should match.InstallOtherMethodcomment confirms 0 means "no bound".lib/grpreps.gi:314says:Only makes sense if
dim=0lifts the upper bound, not if it selects modules of dimension exactly zero.Change
Two-line diff to
lib/grpreps.gd:The
Pass 0 to impose no dimension boundsentence is a small addition that surfaces existing behaviour — previously only discoverable from theInstallOtherMethodcomment — directly in the reference manual.Docs only. No behaviour change.