#15949: Involutions on NSym and QSym part II
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: darij | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.2
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: partitions, | Merged in:
symmetric functions, NSym, QSym, | Reviewers:
NCSF, Kronecker product, | Work issues:
Authors: Darij Grinberg | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | 5951b6d429c94fcba5f1c235be3465fdb845766a
Branch: public/combinat | Stopgaps:
/invol-nsym-2 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
My implementation is light-years faster (even accounting for bias in my
test) than the one via coercion. Try it on compositions of 8 (I got bored
and stopped it):
{{{
sage: def test(C):
....: cl,cr = C.random_element(), C.random_element()
....: print cl
....: print cr
....: l,r = Psi[cl], Psi[cr]
....: %time d1 = Psi.internal_product_on_basis_by_bracketing(cl,cr)
....: %time d2 = Psi.internal_product(l,r)
sage: C = Compositions(7)
sage: test(C)
[1, 1, 5]
[2, 1, 1, 1, 2]
CPU times: user 20 ms, sys: 0 ns, total: 20 ms
Wall time: 33.2 ms
CPU times: user 44.4 s, sys: 84 ms, total: 44.5 s
Wall time: 53.9 s
}}}
So I'm in favor of making the standard algorithm. Would you be good with
this?
Your current changes are good.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15949#comment:17>
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/d/optout.
