#16662: OA for n=1046,1059,2164,3992,3994
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: combinatorial | Resolution:
designs | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers:
Authors: Nathann Cohen | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: u/ncohen/16662 | 8fcaed066b7f110af10c6a471cbebcad370bd312
Dependencies: #16604 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Hello,
Moving the `good` part would change nothing to the timings. You already
have the following for the `m` loop which is the cost of everything
{{{
if not (orthogonal_array(k,m+0,existence=True) and
orthogonal_array(k,m+1,existence=True) and
orthogonal_array(k,m+2,existence=True)):
continue
}}}
If you feel like this function is too costly, we can remove it from the
`find_recursive_constructions` and just store the interesting values:
{{{
if (k,n) not in ((10,1046), (10,1048), (10,1059), (11,1524),
(11,2164), (12,3362), (12,3992), (12,3994)):
return False
}}}
About your question, you were right and we can even go up to `n=N-1`.
Tell me what you think about the first question and I will add a commit.
Vincent
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16662#comment:28>
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.
