#16358: Wrong answers of IncidenceStructure.automorphism_group()
-----------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: combinatorics | Keywords:
Merged in: | Authors: Nathann Cohen
Reviewers: | Report Upstream: N/A
Work issues: | Branch:
Commit: | Dependencies:
Stopgaps: |
-----------------------------+---------------------------------
I would say that this was broken when #16237 was fixed. The cool news is
that it did not make it inside of the stable release `:-P`
....
On the other hand all the doctests of `automorphism_group` were not
changed, so it cannot be #16237. So it may have been wrong since the
beginning ? `O_o`
Before this branch is applied :
{{{
sage: BlockDesign(4,[[0,1,2,3],[1,2,3]],test=False).automorphism_group()
Permutation Group with generators [()]
}}}
After:
{{{
sage: BlockDesign(4,[[0,1,2,3],[1,2,3]],test=False).automorphism_group()
Permutation Group with generators [(3,4), (2,3)]
}}}
Aaaaaaaand it turns out that writing this patch did not even force me to
change any doctest.. So it was just bad luck that the automorphism groups
used in the docstrings were EXACTLY the automorphism groups of the duals
(like the Fano plane... `:-P`) `:-P`
Nathann
P.S. : this also adds some potentially useful keyword in is_block_design.
That's how I found this bug.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16358>
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.
