#17920: Reimplement IntegerLists using Polyhedron.integral_points()
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jdemeyer | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: blocker | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jeroen Demeyer | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jdemeyer/ticket/17920 | 5f81a0a08bed2dc5c73f8f99dd32deafdfb3c9a1
Dependencies: #17937 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:41 jdemeyer]:
> I'm not sure about the counting... I guess a well-written Cython
> implementation of `IntegerListsLex` will usually be faster than the
> current polyhedra code. Profiling shows that a lot of time is spent in
> just ''constructing'' the polyhedra (if there are not so many points,
> enumerating them takes a lot less time than constructing the
> polyhedron in the first place).
Agreed, especially if we further go parallel: counting through
polyhedral methods only becomes relevant for relatively large
polyhedron. But this would be a very useful feature. So count
would eventually have some threshold to choose between the
two methods.
By the way: we don't yet use Barvinok-like algorithms for counting
(e.g. through LattE), or do we? This could make a difference too.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17920#comment:54>
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.
