#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: Nathann Cohen, Jeroen
Anne Schilling, Nicolas M. Thiery | Demeyer, Travis Scrimshaw
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
public/ticket/17979 | 3fab366c21e8f479deb8ffbbd6dcb1eb88b72b35
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:388 jdemeyer]:
> I do find it surprisingly inconsistent that
> {{{
> sage: IntegerListsLex(7, floor=[4,3,2,1], max_part=4,
min_slope=-1).list()
> }}}
> works but
> {{{
> sage: IntegerListsLex(7, floor=[4], max_part=4, min_slope=-1).list()
> }}}
> does not.
Annoying indeed. The fine point is in the heuristic to decide how deep
we want to lookahead to find a lower bound on the total floor area. In
a case like this we could potentially compute how deep to go until the
floor would reach its limit of zero.
I would tend to postpone that: there is no risk of wrong answer, the
existence of false negatives is now documented in
``_check_finiteness`` (using the above examples), and the user can set
``check=False`` to workaround the limitation.
What do you think?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17979#comment:395>
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.
