Dear Dr. Gurican,
In your last letter you had asked what formal requirements your
students work would have to fulfill in order to be submitted for
possible inclusion with GAP. There are three obvious ones:
1. There should be a consistent and complete description (in English)
of the theoretical background. As in papers, otherwise published
material can be quoted, but for readability at least all definitions
should be given and proofs of any claims that cannot be found in the
2. There should be a clear description of the implemented functions
and their use that is as similar as possible in style and format to
the descriptions in the GAP manual. That is, if the functions would be
incorporated into GAP manual then these descriptions should fit into
3. There should be clearly written GAP code with well written and
helpful comments on what the function is doing.
All this should be in a reasonably final form. It may be that the
referee might have suggestions for improvement, but (s)he should not
have the task to find a path through wilderness.
What I have so far got from you was not yet in such a form but rather
represented sketches of the state of the development of ideas at a
certain time. Please do not be offended that much to my regret I
simply do not have the time to work my way through that and to write
long letters of recommendations (nor can I ask a referee to do that).
I have sometimes a dozen letters per day to answer and of course I
have my normal teaching load and my own students. It is most
certainly not snobism or bad will, but simply lack of time that I
cannot really help students in other places through their initial
problems, but I will try to help with getting information and
eventually finding a referee.
Wishing further good progress with the permutational products, with
kind regards Joachim Neubueser