#17979: Reimplementation of IntegerListsLex
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: aschilling | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: blocker | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: days64 | Merged in:
Authors: Bryan Gillespie, | Reviewers:
Anne Schilling, Nicolas M. Thiery | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | f8f9a0202625c2eaaccfd8fb35f7ce95e495dc1a
public/ticket/17979 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jdemeyer):
Replying to [comment:105 nthiery]:
> At this point, I have settled for:
>
> - `min_part` to specify a lower bound for all parts
> - `floor` to specify lower bounds on the individual parts
>
> What do you think?
>
> Question: if the users passes `floor=f, min_part=i` should
`IntegerListsLex` assume that `f(k)` is always at most `i`, or should it
wrap `f` to add this guarantee? At this point it does the latter.
The latter is the approach I took at #17920, so I agree completely :-)
It fits well with the philosophy that ''all'' constraints have to be taken
into account.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17979#comment:112>
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.
