#16227: Product construction of Transversal Designs
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
ncohen | Status: needs_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.2
enhancement | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: | Reviewers:
combinatorics | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | 054d2a2ffa441f675594a09b95cf943f41121b4c
Nathann Cohen | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
u/ncohen/16227 |
Dependencies: |
#15310 |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
1) As I mentioned in #15310, I would prefer to have `TD_product` to be
something called with arguments `k,n1,n2` as it is for Wilson
construction. Specifications {{{def
TD_product(k,n1,n2,TD1=None,TD2=None)}}} might be better. But then, if you
provide TD1 and TD2, the arguments k,n1,n2 are redundant.
2) Is there any link between this product construction and the one for
mols?
3) As Brett mentioned in #15310, it would make sense to have a more
involved `find_wilson_decomposition` which also contains product. There
are tons of variants of Wilson decomposition and according to Colbourne-
Dinitz this is how most of the current records are obtained. We might
concentrate all the non-direct constructions into a global function
`build_TD_from_smaller_ones` or `generalized_Wilson_construction`.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16227#comment:4>
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.
