#18439: is_projective_plane for incidence structure
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: q.honore | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.7
Component: combinatorial | Resolution:
designs | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers: Vincent Delecroix
Authors: Quentin Honoré | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 980680371fce74966baa1982a0d0ed24c6cd7a03
u/q.honore/is_projective_plane | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
> Could you precise what you think:
> - there is no need for `is_projective_plane`
> - `is_projective_plane` should call the existing
`is_group_divisible_design`
> - `is_projective_plane` would be better as a function in
`designs_pyx.pyx`
What I see in this branch is mostly error messages, which have already
been implemented in `is_pairwise_balanced_design`. Similarly, you check
that every pair of vertices appears once, and this is already done in
`is_pairwise_balanced_design`. In both cases, I do not see any reason to
have them twice, especially when the second is faster.
If all this function does is call `is_pairwise_balanced_design`, then it
can stay in a `.py` file, as it will not compute much.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18439#comment:8>
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.
