#19123: LatticePoset: add is_vertically_decomposable
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  jmantysalo         |        Owner:
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_work
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-6.9
      Component:  combinatorics      |   Resolution:
       Keywords:                     |    Merged in:
        Authors:  Jori Mäntysalo     |    Reviewers:
Report Upstream:  N/A                |  Work issues:
         Branch:                     |       Commit:
  u/jmantysalo/vertically_decomposable|  
0d472a68c9edf4ddea1404ff0cb6d2f508de55d0
   Dependencies:                     |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jmantysalo):

 * status:  needs_review => needs_work


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:3 ncohen]:

 > Sounds good, but don't you think it may be useful to *know* where the
 poset splits?

 Yes, I think that will be usefull. For posets we have `is_connected()`,
 `connected_components()` and `disjoint_union()`. I guess we should have
 `is_vertically_decomposable()`, `vertically_indecomposable_parts()` and
 `vertical_sum()` for lattices.

 There are of course other options, like having a function (this one, with
 an argument?) returning list of "decomposition elements". The user could
 then run `interval()` on them to get parts.

 > Also, why is it only defined for lattices? The algorithm works in all
 cases.

 How should it be defined on non-connected posets? And I am not sure if
 this works with non-bounded posets; I thinked about bounded ones when
 writing this.

 > I did not test it, but from the code's look I am not sure that it works
 for the chain of length 2, as the docstring indicates. Could you add a
 doctest for that?

 Arghs! You are right, of course. I forget the special case when writing
 the code. I'll correct it.

 (Btw, this would be nice exercise of (totally unneeded) optimization. One
 should not need to look for all edged of Hasse diagram to see that a poset
 is indecomposable.)

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19123#comment:4>
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.

Reply via email to