#17581: resolvable BIBD
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: ncohen | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.5
Component: combinatorial | Resolution:
designs | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers: Vincent Delecroix
Authors: Nathann Cohen | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 6ec96bfe78beb32322dd37792b8712432f2efd64
u/vdelecroix/17581 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vdelecroix):
* status: positive_review => needs_work
* reviewer: => Vincent Delecroix
Comment:
Replying to [comment:10 ncohen]:
> Yo !
>
> > See my commit at `u/vdelecroix/17581`.
>
> Looks good. About the example of KTS at the beginning of the doc: I
tried to write it in such a way that it is both informative and readable
by users. Yours is prettier indeed, but.. Clearly harder to read. Anyway
let's talk about this before it is changed, next time.
Right. I found it so ugly...
> > 1) Why not return an object with type `BalancedIncompleteBlockDesign`.
That way you can add to the examples `.is_resolvable()`. (moreover,
contrarily to the others `v_4_1_rbibd` does!?)
>
> I do not understand your sentence. Where isn't a
`BalancedIncompleteBlockDesign` object returned?
look at the case for `k=2` in
`resolvable_balanced_incomplete_block_design`. And by the way
{{{
sage: KTS = designs.resolvable_balanced_incomplete_block_design(8,2); KTS
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
TypeError: unhashable type: 'list'
}}}
> > 2) The lines
> > {{{
> > bla.extend([a**(i+j0),a**(i+j1),a**(i+j2)] for i in a_big_list])
> > }}}
>
> AHahah. Well compared to the complexity of other parts of the algorithm
I am sure that it makes no difference. By the way isn't it a `nlog(n)`
complexity ? Exponents are cheap.
Right. These are `n log(n)`, I realized that after I put on "submit
changes".
> > 3) I used `discrete_log` where you did a `while` loop... should be
faster.
>
> Oh thanks, I did not know that we had that. There must be some other
spot where it is needed in the code then, for I am sure that I missed it
once at least.
Hum, strange. That you who spot these to me in a previous ticket ;-)
> Assuming that you see nothing else to change, I set this ticket to
`positive_review`. Thanks for your help again, there would be no design
code in Sage if not for that `^^;`
Please fix the case `k=2`
Vincent
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17581#comment:11>
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.
