Perhaps this has been fixed already?
sage: version()
'SAGE Version 3.0.alpha2, Release Date: 2008-04-06'
sage: import sage.graphs
sage: import sage.graphs.graph_isom
sage:
sage: G=Graph("[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL
PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@KN~_????^}?????~{")
<, 17, 18, 0, 5, 4, 2, 6, 1, 3, 9, 7, 8, 20, 25, 24, 22, 26, 21, 23,
29, 27, 28, 31, 30, 32]
sage: H=G.relabel(perm,inplace=False)
sage:
sage: _,Gcan=sage.graphs.graph_isom.search_tree(G,[range(G.order())])
sage: _,Hcan=sage.graphs.graph_isom.search_tree(H,[range(H.order())])
sage: if Gcan==Hcan:
....: print "NICE says the graphs are isomorphic"
....: else:
....: print "NICE says the graphs are NOT isomorphic"
....:
NICE says the graphs are isomorphic
Since bugs are usually reported to sage-support (not sage-devel), I am
cross-posting.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Stephen Hartke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached is an example where NICE does not correctly determine the
> isomorphism between two graphs. I tested this with Sage 2.11. I have not
> had an opportunity to examine the NICE code, so I'm not sure where the
> problem is.
>
> I do not currently have a Trac account, so I am sending the example here.
>
> Best wishes,
> Stephen
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
