#18972: twographs and Seidel switching
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: dimpase | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.9
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/dimpase/seidelsw | b76c9a0369a5babc98481d6b96125c9b86f1adc9
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by dimpase):
Replying to [comment:5 ncohen]:
> > In a similar vein you can say that Laplacian matrix should not be
there, as it is a simple variation of the adjacency matrix, too...
>
> I would not say that, for there are books written about the laplacian
matrix is .... well. More confidential.
There are many papers and book chapters written about Seidel adjacency
matrix and Seidel switching.
And there are no books written `graph6`, yet it is there in full glory.
>
> > It is there because we want to have readable code with readable
documentation. It is syntactic sugar, if you wish.
>
> The only guy who uses this expression is Nicolas Thierry.
I don't know what you are talking about: go read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_sugar
Googling "syntactic sugar" gives you over 300,000 hits.
Anyhow, if you are not willing to allow `Seidel_adjacency_matrix` into
Sage graphs, I'd stop working on this implementation now.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18972#comment:6>
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.
