#16295: Faster is_orthogonal_array
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: combinatorial | Resolution:
designs | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers:
Authors: Nathann Cohen | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: u/ncohen/16295 | 31e84b82913815b2005b5e2e45650c1568a45761
Dependencies: #16236 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Hello,
> I understand what the code is doing. When I say "square" I mean "latin
square" and in the language of MOLS column 0 of an OA is the row index of
the Squares, column 1 is the column index and column i is latin square
i-2.
Right now when `are_mutually_latin_squares` calls `is_orthogonal_array` it
does not check that the resulting OA is a `OA(k+2,n)` but only that it is
a `OA(k,n)`. This, because the OA that is produced has only k columns and
not k+2. This, because the columns corresponding to the row indices and
the columns indices are not added to the OA.
This way, when the sequence of matrices is not a MOLS, the error message
is that "matrix i is not orthogonal with matrix j" or that "matrix i is
not a latin squares".
Which is, I believe, clearer to the user and easier to implement than by
messing with the error messages of `is_orthogonal_design`.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16295#comment:51>
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.
