#19141: Poset documentation polishing: Boolean-valued properties
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-6.10
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: poset | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/poset_documentation_polishing__boolean_valued_properties|
d99ab5f27d400709e8108c41e3eb62623ac4f83a
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by kdilks):
Just writing down my comments as I read through, I may make some of the
changes mentioned if I get a chance.
- In {{{is_incomparable_chain_free()}}} the three cases of (m+n)-free
having a special name, the case (1+2) is missing the parentheses around
1+2.
- I think the input for {{{is_incomparable_chain_free}}} is a bit
confusing, since m can be an integer or a list of pairs of integers. Or at
least the first part of the decription needs to be a bit more verbose to
describe what's happening.
- I don't like the name {{{is_chain()}}} being used for checking if a
poset is totally ordered. Shouldn't this be called
{{{is_totally_ordered}}}, to avoid confusion with checking that a given
subset of the poset forms a chain? Or maybe {{{is_chain_poset()}}}?
- Maybe the definition of a poset being connected could mention that an
equivalent definition is the Hasse diagram being connected?
- Informal definition of a ranked poset should be touched up a bit. Should
say something more along the lines of 'all cover relations are between
elements on adjacent levels'. Strictly speaking, saying they can't skip
levels doesn't exclude the possibility of them being on the same level. I
also think the 'formal definition' should come before the informal one,
and not be branded as 'formal'.
- I'm not sure the informal definition of a graded poset helps at all.
Saying all maximal chains have the same length is pretty clear. And if it
does stay, there's one typo ('throught').
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19141#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.
