#16231: Equivalence between OA/TD/MOLS
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
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: | a9dce705211f5593b926c0512a40ada05d978ff3
Nathann Cohen | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
u/ncohen/16231 |
Dependencies: |
#15310, #16227 |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Hi Nathann,
I added some documentation, please start editing from u/vdelecroix/16231
If `n` is a prime power, there is an optimal construction, i.e. a
`TD(n+1,n)` and there is no need to check for product or Wilson
construction. But right now the code in `transversal_design` does. For
prime powers there are two places where some code is implemented:
- in orthogonal_array (you refer to theorem 6.39 and 6.40 of Stinson)
- in mutually_orthogonal_latin_squares (you refer to section 6.4.1 of
Stinson)
Are the outputs equivalent? Note that there is no way to test it with the
current code, unless I use the forbidden `who_asked` parameter. Would it
be possible to isolate the two constructions in two functions? Why do we
need two constructions for the case of `n` being a prime power?
Vincent
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16231#comment:6>
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.
