#14973: New functions for binary linear codes
---------------------------------+--------------------------
Reporter: veronica | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.12
Component: coding theory | Resolution:
Keywords: binary codes | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Dependencies:
Stopgaps: |
---------------------------------+--------------------------
Comment (by veronica):
Replying to [comment:8 ppurka]:
> Some comments:
>
Thanks for your comments!!
> 1. The indentation error is not only in the line `F = self.base_ring()`.
All of the existing code in the `covering_radius` method needs to be
indented.
Yes, it got moved after I runned the tests, I guess. I just fixed it.
> 2. The `@rename_keyword` should not be introduced at all in the
`covering_radius` code. This is a new keyword to the covering radius
method and so you can simply introduce it without any deprecation
warnings.
Ok I got it. Also fixed
> 3. Is all of your code only for linear codes over `GF(2)`? Then you need
to check the inputs to make sure that if other parents are input then it
either degrades gracefully and automatically to an older algorithm (for
instance in `covering_radius`), or it gives an error.
So far it is only for linear codes over `GF(2)`. I'll do the check in
every function.
> 3. Do you have plans to use values of `order` other than `degrevlex`?
`degrevlex` in most of the cases reduce the number of operations to
compute the `grobner_basis`.
Even that I'd like to leave it as option to the user, but maybe I should
do this only for the function `groebner_basis()`(still at work)
In other cases like `grobner_representation()` and `coset_leaders()` I
should use only `degrevlex`.
> In fact, I don't understand why `ETuple` is being used. The only place I
am finding it really being used is in comparing of two lists (the
`compare_tuples_degrevlex` function). I raise this point because quite a
bit of time would be spent in simply converting vectors to lists and then
the lists to `ETuple`s. Later on, you also need the `ETuple`s to be
converted back to vectors in the `grobner_representation` function. If
there is a more direct way of doing the comparison you are doing (without
all these conversions to `ETuple` and back), then that should speed up the
computations a bit.
You're right
Actually the set of coset leaders it doesn't depend on the order, so at
least for this function I'm doing the implementation without using
`ETuple`. I also think that should speed up the computations.
`grobner_representation()` is going to be used in one of the decoding
algorithm, so maybe I can also only use `degrevlex`, I'll discuss it with
my mentors.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14973#comment:9>
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
