#19831: Add random_element() for cones
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: mjo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.0
Component: geometry | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Michael Orlitzky | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/mjo/ticket/19831 | c2ff0460b15f2d4175be60fc34c706408d90e8a0
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by mjo):
Replying to [comment:2 novoselt]:
> I am a bit unsure about rationality. Seems like returning a random
element of the lattice would be more natural and those who want can then
scale by a rational or even real factor.
This wouldn't be too bad but it makes all of my uses of it ugly. Each
invocation is `K.random_element()` versus
`QQ.random_element()*vector(K.random_element())`.
I'm using rationals because some of the properties I'm testing involve
norms (say, in a denominator) where you really want to test a value
between zero and one.
> Or there could be an optional parameter for this, defaulting to all
integral weights?
This would be no problem, but how should the return type work? If we use
integral weights we could return a lattice element but with any other
field it would have to be a vector.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19831#comment:4>
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
