#17030: Knot Theory as a part of GSoC 2014.
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: amitjamadagni | Owner: amitjamadagni
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.9
Component: algebraic | Resolution:
topology | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers: Miguel Marco, Karl-
Authors: Amit Jamadagni, | Dieter Crisman, Frédéric Chapoton
Miguel Marco | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 8f4ec1977612c42da767931683dae92ba17e4bb0
public/ticket/17030 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by fuglede):
Replying to [comment:131 tscrim]:
> Getting the number of (connected) components seems very expensive from
the code, but I haven't done any profiling. To compute it, we have to get
the PD code (this looks like the most expensive part), construct a graph,
and check the number of connected components on that. Is there a
faster/better way to check?
>
> I don't think we need a conversion from a knot to a link because of
subclassing, however I'm not opposed to handling a `Link` as input to
`Knot`/`Link`.
Sorry for coming in a bit from the sideline here, but if the link is given
as a trace closure of a braid, the number of components is straightforward
to compute: https://github.com/fuglede/jones-
representation/blob/9305852913b9092f4ef18e547400fb8b66f33079/curverep.sage#L394
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17030#comment:132>
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.
