#18597: Implement m-Cambrian lattices (using delta sequences)
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nathanwilliams | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
sagedays64.5,catalan,coxeter,cambrian| Reviewers: Christian Stump
Authors: Nathan Williams | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 49aab49c1afb45314bc444114c8385bc557d5ab5
u/stumpc5/implement_m_cambrian_lattices__using_delta_sequences_| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
#18590,#18610,#11187 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
I would think it shouldn't matter for dense versus sparse matrices other
than some output, internal storage, and/or speed:
{{{
sage: M = matrix(QQ, [[1,2],[0,1]], sparse=True)
sage: M2 = matrix(QQ, [[1,2],[0,1]], sparse=False)
sage: M.set_immutable()
sage: M2.set_immutable()
sage: M == M2
True
sage: hash(M) == hash(M2)
True
}}}
What exactly are the issues you get? I'd guess that the reasons for some
of the differences come from some of the matrices that get generated...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18597#comment:21>
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.
