#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 jmantysalo):
Replying to [comment:8 kdilks]:
> - 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.
As I asked: "Or maybe just drop support for list type argument?". It is
easy to guess why the list argument is done: to have slightly easier way
to filter semiorders. But it is still oneliner to write without list type
argument.
To drop it, to keep and clarify the documentation, or to deprecate it?
> - 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()}}}?
Very true. Not `is_chain_poset`, as it is too easy to confuse with
`is_chain_of_poset`. So, deprecation and a new name?
> - Maybe the definition of a poset being connected could mention that an
equivalent definition is the Hasse diagram being connected?
Yes. Actually it seems obvious from the name what the function does.
> - 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'.
This is a function where formal definition is easy, but still very hard
compared to informal definition - or to a picture. But yes, I must think
the wording.
> - 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').
Yeah, maybe I remove it.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19141#comment:9>
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.
