#16604: new OA for n=112,160,176,208,224,352,416,514,544,640,796,896
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
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: public/16604 | 3d1482926f8621b2fc509aec9e6e4281244524af
Dependencies: #16582 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Hello,
Thanks for your careful reading.
> > Please read three times the documentation to see whether its readable
and understandable. You can also complain about the ugly name I choose,
but in that case find something better.
>
> Well. Did you read it three times yourself ? {{{:-P}}}
No. I wrote it three times ;-?
> - Most of the function's one line description defines what n is, and at
this level we do not care much. What about {{{Returns an OA(k,|G_1|2^c)
from a constrained (G_1,k-1,2)-difference matrix}}} ? It is a bit more
meaningful and also indicates that the function's input is not as simple
as a pair of integers...
done
> - Why `G_1` and not `G` ?
Because G was the cartesian product. Now changed.
> - Shouldn't we use `F_p` rather than `GF(2)` in the doc ?
You meant `F_2`? And then use `F_{2^c}` for `GF(2^c)`. In non compiled
version of the doc I found my version more readable. Moreover, it
conincides with what you use in Sage to get your finite field. And it is
pretty much standard ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GF%282%29 wikipedia
entry for GF(2)]).
> - {{{that belong t}}}
t -> to (done)
> - B and C : why not name them `A_{G_1}` and {{{A_{GF(2)} }}} ?
B and C is the notation from Abel-Cheng 1994. And it is much shorter when
you have to write `B_{i,k_1}` instead of `(A_{GF(2)})_{i,k_1}`.
> - {{{For any pair `i` and `j` of distinct integers in `{1,...,k-1}` and
`g` an element of `G_1`}}} --> {{{for any i\neq j and g\in G_1}}} ?
done
> - `C_{i,k_1} - C_{i,k_1}` is zero `:-P`
you are right! It is now `C_{i,k_1} - C_{j,k_1}`.
> - the array whose rowS
done
> About the function's name here's my attempt:
`OA_p_times_2_pow_c_from_matrix` ? With your name one can believe that it
is just about powers of two. And the "from matrix" indicated that "if you
are looking for something standard, pass your way".
As I mentioned it is not `p_times_2_pow_c` but `n_times_2_pow_c`. `G`
needs not be a cyclic group of prime order. Changed for
`OA_n_times_2_pow_c_from_matrix`.
Vincent
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16604#comment:39>
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.
