#18944: Posets: maximal_chains() partial-option broken
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.9
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: posets | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/maximal_chains | e6a4ae2b1f7f887b58a49af5c1607640c7821dde
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jmantysalo):
Replying to [comment:11 tscrim]:
> I'm not opposed to changing the behavior to removing the saturated
condition, but it would make the code a lot more complex (i.e., likely
non-recursive).
Not necessarily, as digraphs already have `all_paths(start, end)`. A PoC:
{{{
P = Posets.BooleanLattice(5)
g = P.hasse_diagram()
k = [1,11,31]
for x in [flatten(c) for c in CartesianProduct(*[g.all_paths(k[i],k[i+1])
for i in range(len(k)-1)])]:
print [x[i] for i in range(len(x)) if x[i] != x[i-1]]
}}}
But in that case the name of the parameter should be `include`, not
`partial`.
I still think that we could remove it. Maybe with deprecation that
mentions `_max_chains()`?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18944#comment:12>
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.
