#14589: binary matrices, dense graphs, and faster is_strongly_regular
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: jason, ncohen, rlm
ncohen | Status: needs_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.1
enhancement | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: graph | Reviewers:
theory | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | b56444ba216f3c2e6d7f20e34daf80f5d5aec781
Nathann Cohen | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
u/ncohen/14589 |
Dependencies: |
#14805 |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> Indeed. Of course there is the stupid, thing of checking that the sum is
n(n+1)/2 but I think that looks even more weird in this context?
`O_o`
Instead of that test, you mean ?
Well, we have no way to be sure that the vertices CAN be summed. I mean,
this test is meant to check whether there is any need to store a
label_to_int dictionary. If the vertices are 0...n-1 there is no need and
so we do without. But if the vertices are... I don't know, anything !
Strings, Sets, partitions, tuples.. immutables graphs ? Well in that case
we remember labels. And we cannot be sure that those can all be summed
together.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14589#comment:27>
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.
