#16598: Useless new classes and a replacement for _check_pbd
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  ncohen             |        Owner:
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_work
       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/16598     |  cdaf1e2e834f3895d1fb096a139446bf8620d319
   Dependencies:  #16553             |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vdelecroix):

 * status:  needs_review => needs_work


Comment:

 Hey Nathann,

 In group divisible design, there must be more parameters:
  - `v` the size of the ground set
  - `K` the admissible size of the blocks
  - `G` the admissible size of the groups
 The definition seems to be standard (see the big paper of Hanani and the
 definition IV.1.3 of the Handbook)

 Anyway, GDD is just a strict generalization of PBD and it is very clear
 from Handbook IV.1.3.
 That way, your `is_pbd` would just be a lambda function.

 Actually, it would be nicer that `IncidenceStructure` would actually be a
 `GroupDivisibleDesign` (groups being the partition into points). The
 points can be ordered in such way that the groups are
 {{{
 0 1 ... g1-1|g1 g1+1 ... g1+g2-1|...
 }}}
 and then the new class would just need an extra `._group_sizes` attribute
 that would be an integer partition.

 Some methods are not well adapted to group divisible designs
  - `dual`: is the dual well defined for GDD?
  - `incidence_matrix`: must be the incidence matrix group/block (or put a
 flag allowing to have points/blocks)
  - `automorphis_group` is wrong since it must preserver the groups

 Why do you use tuples where everywhere in `IncidenceStructure` there are
 lists?

 Would you mind having a "stupid" `.group_sizes()` method?

 Vincent

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16598#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.

Reply via email to