On Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:56:10 AM UTC-8, Nathann Cohen wrote: > Well, splitting sounds nice indeed but what exactly do you point at ? You > can't swear that a TD will be built without ever requiring a MOLS to be > built at some recursion step. > Right. In your steps 3), probably your TD-specific constructions only depend on structures with strictly smaller parameters (never mind that for MOLS the meaning of n is apparently shifted by 2), so at least those constructions would only inquire about structures with *strictly smaller* parameters. When you explain induction proofs to students (if you ever do that), you probably make a point that the induction step really should reduce to a previous case.
So indeed, the splitting is not so much in TD-only constructions, but more in terms of TD-specific constructions based on strictly smaller structures. It still allows you to prove that you'll only be recursing a finite number of steps (in fact, you can probably say exactly how many maximally, because you probably know how n,k decrease throughout the different steps). If you're unlucky enough to run into a conscientious reviewer, he/she might actually want a guarantee that your procedure does finish in finite time, so structuring the code in such a way that this can easily be argued might be a good idea. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
