#19123: LatticePoset: add is_vertically_decomposable
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
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_decomposable2|
1356d17b1bd124fa573767ee8b7e5d50798004c0
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jmantysalo):
Replying to [comment:40 kdilks]:
> I still think that formal definitions should come first, without being
labelled as formal definitions, and then informal definitions can come
after.
OK, I can change that.
Replying to [comment:41 kdilks]:
> I'm not sure if I like the backend code living in
{{{hasse_diagram.py}}}. Even if the code applies to more than lattices,
you seem to still be making assumptions about the poset being bounded.
Plus the initial docstring there is written in a way that implies it only
works for lattices.
I think that all code in {{{hasse_diagram.py}}} is "internal", i.e. it is
user's fault if something break for direct call to it.
If this is not in {{{hasse_diagram.py}}}, then I guess it must be copied
if I want to optimize `frattini_sublattice()` with it. Or
`linear_extensions_number()` maybe?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19123#comment:42>
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.
