#19878: LatticePoset: add is_coatomic, simpler code
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-7.1
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: latticeposet | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/simpler_atomic | 533d660eaf56a4a19116e28759c5d408c860999b
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jmantysalo):
Replying to [comment:4 chapoton]:
> Why do you change ('simplify') the code ? What you propose has to run
over all the lattice, even after it has already found more join
irreducibles than atoms..
I tested with
{{{
B10 = Posets.BooleanLattice(10)
B10_ = B10.with_bounds()
}}}
and then timed both
{{{
[B10.is_atomic() for i in range(1000)].count(True)
[B10_.is_atomic() for i in range(1000)].count(True)
}}}
For `B10` the time drops from 5,57 second to 0,85 seconds, for `B10_` it
raised from 0,78 to 0,85 seconds. But I can revert this back if you want.
(It is not reasonable to think about something like `BooleanLattice(20)`,
as just `BooleanLattice(12)` takes 43 seconds to complete.)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19878#comment:5>
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.
