#14846: CycleIndexSeries derivative, integral, exponential methods are not
combinatorial
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  agd                |        Owner:  agd
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_review
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-6.1
      Component:  combinatorics      |   Resolution:
       Keywords:                     |    Merged in:
        Authors:  Andrew Gainer-     |    Reviewers:  mantepse
  Dewar                              |  Work issues:  documentation
Report Upstream:  N/A                |       Commit:
         Branch:  u/agd/cis/deriv    |  dd77e4ae6388bd8ad52d7f6a13848fe6490b25d2
   Dependencies:                     |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by agd):

 Thanks for the suggestions!

 Replying to [comment:14 mantepse]:
 > I'd suggest to really remove access to the three inherited methods, and
 rewrite the methods that use _lps_exponential accordingly:

 Sounds good to me. Done, in the latest push.

 > * in set_species, we really want to return the "true" exponential cycle
 index series
 > * in partition_species, the "true" exponential of the "true" exponential
 - 1
 > * in subset_species, the square of the "true" exponential

 I have rewritten all of these to use algebraic operations on the
 exponential CIS.

 > As far as I can see, the other two methods _lps_derivative and
 _lps_integral are not used anywhere.

 Seems to be true. I just included them for completeness. They're gone now.

 > This might have a speed penalty, but I'd worry about that only if it's
 serious.  I think it's not a good idea to make the cycle index series
 depend on the species code, as in the proposed patch.

 Actually, I think the new way should actually be *faster*, there's just
 one instance of the exponential series which gets cached and handed
 around.

 > I would perhaps also put the definition for the combinatorial logarithm
 into the same file.

 Once I wrote the other stuff, this seemed very reasonable, so I've done
 that as well.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14846#comment:16>
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.

Reply via email to