#17979: Reimplementation of IntegerListsLex
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: aschilling | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: blocker | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: days64 | Merged in:
Authors: Bryan Gillespie, | Reviewers: Nathann Cohen, Jeroen
Anne Schilling, Nicolas M. Thiery | Demeyer, Travis Scrimshaw
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
public/ticket/17979 | d66d70dd8325ccb638289870c626652ac81d0fc7
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jdemeyer):
Replying to [comment:333 aschilling]:
> > Sorry, I obviously meant
> > {{{
> > sage: IntegerListsLex(length=2, max_slope=0, min_slope=1).list()
> > }}}
> > which should have an empty output.
>
> Even in this case, I think Sage is currently correct
Sage is indeed correct that there is an infinite upper bound for
`part[0]`. However, my point is that the resulting list is still finite,
so this example could work.
> unless you can define what Infinity-Infinity is (which would be used in
the slope conditions).
I don't see why I would need to define Infinity - Infinity for this. My
point is that the set of lists satisfying those constraints is clearly
empty.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17979#comment:339>
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.
