#13990: Bug fix and small improvement of spanning_trees_count
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Reporter: azi | Owner: jason, ncohen, rlm
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.7
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers:
Authors: | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Hellooooooo !!
> The guys there seems to agree that
>
> * The empty graph is not a tree. (OK in Sage)
> * The empty graph is a forest. (OK in Sage)
> * The empty graph is not connected. (FAIL in Sage)
> * The number of spanning trees in the empty graph is 0. (FAIL in Sage)
>
> Now I would suggest that I change the patch so that all things work as
expected by the points above. What you think mr Cohen?
Ahahahaah. Well I would have prefered that the empty graph be a tree and a
forest, AND connected. And I still wonder how they deal with the fact that
"there exists a path between any pair of vertices" in the empty graph...
But WELL `:-D`
I'll review that patch if you write it ! And besides the connectedness of
the empty graph, I totally love people that can go to such length over
such trivial things `:-D`
Have fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun !!! `:-D`
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13990#comment:11>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
