#16553: Clean IncidenceStructure
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | 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:
Vincent Delecroix | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | b8012e72038dffa51cc60b0af19283881dec2860
Branch: public/16553v2 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Yo !
> Yes, because of the reordering of the columns.
Ok !
> And the implementation is stupid, if the blocks are sorted, one would do
Yep.
> And... Haaaa.... it is very bad to reorder the blocks:
> Taking dual should just be matrix transposition!! One question: what do
you think of '''not''' reordering the blocks? (which is a different from
the question "sorting each block")
You should stop letting this function decide of how we should implement
everything else. An incidence structure is isomorphic to its double dual
and that's cool. We have more things to care about than making the vertex
set equal to the set of blocks when we take the dual : anyway we cannot do
that without losing the ability to iterate on the elements of a block.
Accept that.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16553#comment:80>
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.
