#19586: Add is_cayley_graph
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jaanos | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.1
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: Cayley graphs | Merged in:
groups | Reviewers: Nathann Cohen
Authors: Janoš Vidali | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | a58a7348bc022f39bf68383b70400e8b7f5b268b
u/jaanos/add_is_cayley_graph | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by ncohen):
* status: positive_review => needs_work
Comment:
> Now, whether we allow Cayley graphs to be disconnected is just a matter
of definition.
Hmmm... I'm sorry to switch this ticket back but I do not think that we
should allow that. From what I know (which is very few) I also believe
that your definition is better, but when there is a widespread definition
of something then Sage *must* follow it. Corner-cases are okay when the
definitions does not tell, but.. Well, what if people start counting those
graphs, or filter only cayley graphs, and stuff?
I believe we should stick to the seemingly widespread definition and only
allow connected ones.
It is particularly unpleasant because of the line from [comment:75]. Right
now the `.cayley_graph` command outputs disconnected graphs, thus somebody
will complain eventually that it does not always return cayley graphs
`>_<`
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19586#comment:86>
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.
