Re: [sage-devel] Two issues about the coding theory method "weight_enumerator"
Thank you for replying and submitting a ticket so promptly! Barbara Am Freitag, 14. Juli 2017 11:39:29 UTC+2 schrieb David Joyner: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde > > wrote: > > Thanks a lot for reporting! We *really* appreciate any feedback from > > using Sage in classes: on bugs, designs and feature requests. > > > > This bug is now #23433. I'll push a patch momentarily. > > > > Thank you, Johan! > > > Best, > > Johan Rosenkilde > > > > > > ... > > >>> > >>> This mistake could be my fault, since I wrote the original version > >>> (long long ago). Unfortunately, I lack the git skills to submit a > >>> patch. > >>> > > ... > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Two issues about the coding theory method "weight_enumerator"
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote: > Thanks a lot for reporting! We *really* appreciate any feedback from > using Sage in classes: on bugs, designs and feature requests. > > This bug is now #23433. I'll push a patch momentarily. > Thank you, Johan! > Best, > Johan Rosenkilde > > ... >>> >>> This mistake could be my fault, since I wrote the original version >>> (long long ago). Unfortunately, I lack the git skills to submit a >>> patch. >>> ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Two issues about the coding theory method "weight_enumerator"
Thanks a lot for reporting! We *really* appreciate any feedback from
using Sage in classes: on bugs, designs and feature requests.
This bug is now #23433. I'll push a patch momentarily.
Best,
Johan Rosenkilde
Dima Pasechnik writes:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 11:43:18 AM UTC+1, David Joyner wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:59 AM, 'B. L.' via sage-devel
>> wrote:
>> > Dear Sage-Developers,
>> >
>> > I'd like to report two issues that I came across when working with the
>> > coding theory classes of SAGE.
>> >
>> > The Sage Reference Manual: Coding Theory, Release 7.6 [1] explains on p.
>> 31:
>> > weight_enumerator [...] This is the bivariate, homogeneous polynomial in
>> 𝑥
>> > and 𝑦 whose coefficient to x^iy^{n-i} is the number of codewords of
>> > 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of Hamming weight 𝑖. Here, 𝑛 is the length of 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓.
>> > Actually, Sage returns another polynomial, namely the polynomial in 𝑥
>> and
>> > 𝑦 whose coefficient to x^{n-i}y^i is the number of codewords of
>> 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of
>> > Hamming weight 𝑖. (So the roles of x and y are interchanged).
>> > This can be directly with C.weight_enumerator?? in the example below
>> [2].
>> >
>> > I suggest to either change the description in the reference or to alter
>> the
>> > code in Sage.
>> >
>>
>> I'd propose just switching the x,y in the code:
>>
>> (1) On line 3503 of linear_code.py, change "return
>> sum(spec[i]*x**(n-i)*y**i for i in range(n+1))" to "return
>> sum(spec[i]*x**(i)*y**(n-i) for i in range(n+1))"
>>
>> (2) On line 3507, change "return sum(spec[i]*x**(n-i) for i in
>> range(n+1))" to "return sum(spec[i]*x**(i) for i in range(n+1))"
>>
>> (3) Some of the examples may change accordingly.
>>
>> This mistake could be my fault, since I wrote the original version
>> (long long ago). Unfortunately, I lack the git skills to submit a
>> patch.
>>
>> A patch can be produced by
>
> git diff > stuff.patch
>
> It would be great if you opened a ticket and posted this diff as an
> attachment...
>
>
>
>>
>> > The function weight_enumerator(bivariate=False) returns the evaluation
>> of
>> > the the above polynomial for y=1. Should't it be (in the current
>> version)
>> > the evaluation with x=1? In other words: Wouldn't one expect a
>> polynomial in
>> > x (or y) whose coefficient to x^i (or y^i) is the number of codewords of
>> > 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of Hamming weight 𝑖?
>> > The example below [2] illustrates my point: The code has four codewords,
>> one
>> > of weight 0, two of weight 3, one of weiht 4. Sage gives x^5 + 2*x^2 + x
>> as
>> > the univariate weight enumerator. I would have expected either 1 + 2*x^3
>> +
>> > x^4 or 1 + 2*y^3 + y^4.
>> >
>> > If you agree, I suggest to alter the code accordingly.
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> > Barbara
>> > PS: I tested the code with Sage version 7.6 on an iMac.
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] http://doc.sagemath.org/pdf/en/reference/coding/coding.pdf
>> >
>> > [2] Sage code for the SageMathCell
>> >
>> > C= LinearCode(Matrix(GF(2),2,5, [[1,1,0,1,0], [0,0,1,1,1]]))
>> > print C.list()
>> > print C.spectrum()
>> > print C.weight_enumerator()
>> > print C.weight_enumerator(bivariate=False)
>> > C.weight_enumerator??
>> >
>> >
>> http://sagecell.sagemath.org/?z=eJxztlXwycxLTSxyzk9J1fBNLCnKrNBwd9Mw0tQx0jHVUYiONtQx1DEA4VggzwDMBMLYWE1NXq6Cosy8EgVnvZzM4hINJH5xQWpySVFpLrJYeWpmekZJfGpeaW5qUWJJfhF-yaTMssSizMSSVFu3xJziVKBaLKrs7QGIgD2K&lang=sage
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> > "sage-devel" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an
>> > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Two issues about the coding theory method "weight_enumerator"
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 11:43:18 AM UTC+1, David Joyner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:59 AM, 'B. L.' via sage-devel
> wrote:
> > Dear Sage-Developers,
> >
> > I'd like to report two issues that I came across when working with the
> > coding theory classes of SAGE.
> >
> > The Sage Reference Manual: Coding Theory, Release 7.6 [1] explains on p.
> 31:
> > weight_enumerator [...] This is the bivariate, homogeneous polynomial in
> 𝑥
> > and 𝑦 whose coefficient to x^iy^{n-i} is the number of codewords of
> > 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of Hamming weight 𝑖. Here, 𝑛 is the length of 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓.
> > Actually, Sage returns another polynomial, namely the polynomial in 𝑥
> and
> > 𝑦 whose coefficient to x^{n-i}y^i is the number of codewords of
> 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of
> > Hamming weight 𝑖. (So the roles of x and y are interchanged).
> > This can be directly with C.weight_enumerator?? in the example below
> [2].
> >
> > I suggest to either change the description in the reference or to alter
> the
> > code in Sage.
> >
>
> I'd propose just switching the x,y in the code:
>
> (1) On line 3503 of linear_code.py, change "return
> sum(spec[i]*x**(n-i)*y**i for i in range(n+1))" to "return
> sum(spec[i]*x**(i)*y**(n-i) for i in range(n+1))"
>
> (2) On line 3507, change "return sum(spec[i]*x**(n-i) for i in
> range(n+1))" to "return sum(spec[i]*x**(i) for i in range(n+1))"
>
> (3) Some of the examples may change accordingly.
>
> This mistake could be my fault, since I wrote the original version
> (long long ago). Unfortunately, I lack the git skills to submit a
> patch.
>
> A patch can be produced by
git diff > stuff.patch
It would be great if you opened a ticket and posted this diff as an
attachment...
>
> > The function weight_enumerator(bivariate=False) returns the evaluation
> of
> > the the above polynomial for y=1. Should't it be (in the current
> version)
> > the evaluation with x=1? In other words: Wouldn't one expect a
> polynomial in
> > x (or y) whose coefficient to x^i (or y^i) is the number of codewords of
> > 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of Hamming weight 𝑖?
> > The example below [2] illustrates my point: The code has four codewords,
> one
> > of weight 0, two of weight 3, one of weiht 4. Sage gives x^5 + 2*x^2 + x
> as
> > the univariate weight enumerator. I would have expected either 1 + 2*x^3
> +
> > x^4 or 1 + 2*y^3 + y^4.
> >
> > If you agree, I suggest to alter the code accordingly.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Barbara
> > PS: I tested the code with Sage version 7.6 on an iMac.
> >
> >
> > [1] http://doc.sagemath.org/pdf/en/reference/coding/coding.pdf
> >
> > [2] Sage code for the SageMathCell
> >
> > C= LinearCode(Matrix(GF(2),2,5, [[1,1,0,1,0], [0,0,1,1,1]]))
> > print C.list()
> > print C.spectrum()
> > print C.weight_enumerator()
> > print C.weight_enumerator(bivariate=False)
> > C.weight_enumerator??
> >
> >
> http://sagecell.sagemath.org/?z=eJxztlXwycxLTSxyzk9J1fBNLCnKrNBwd9Mw0tQx0jHVUYiONtQx1DEA4VggzwDMBMLYWE1NXq6Cosy8EgVnvZzM4hINJH5xQWpySVFpLrJYeWpmekZJfGpeaW5qUWJJfhF-yaTMssSizMSSVFu3xJziVKBaLKrs7QGIgD2K&lang=sage
>
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > "sage-devel" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an
> > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Two issues about the coding theory method "weight_enumerator"
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:59 AM, 'B. L.' via sage-devel
wrote:
> Dear Sage-Developers,
>
> I'd like to report two issues that I came across when working with the
> coding theory classes of SAGE.
>
> The Sage Reference Manual: Coding Theory, Release 7.6 [1] explains on p. 31:
> weight_enumerator [...] This is the bivariate, homogeneous polynomial in 𝑥
> and 𝑦 whose coefficient to x^iy^{n-i} is the number of codewords of
> 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of Hamming weight 𝑖. Here, 𝑛 is the length of 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓.
> Actually, Sage returns another polynomial, namely the polynomial in 𝑥 and
> 𝑦 whose coefficient to x^{n-i}y^i is the number of codewords of 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of
> Hamming weight 𝑖. (So the roles of x and y are interchanged).
> This can be directly with C.weight_enumerator?? in the example below [2].
>
> I suggest to either change the description in the reference or to alter the
> code in Sage.
>
I'd propose just switching the x,y in the code:
(1) On line 3503 of linear_code.py, change "return
sum(spec[i]*x**(n-i)*y**i for i in range(n+1))" to "return
sum(spec[i]*x**(i)*y**(n-i) for i in range(n+1))"
(2) On line 3507, change "return sum(spec[i]*x**(n-i) for i in
range(n+1))" to "return sum(spec[i]*x**(i) for i in range(n+1))"
(3) Some of the examples may change accordingly.
This mistake could be my fault, since I wrote the original version
(long long ago). Unfortunately, I lack the git skills to submit a
patch.
> The function weight_enumerator(bivariate=False) returns the evaluation of
> the the above polynomial for y=1. Should't it be (in the current version)
> the evaluation with x=1? In other words: Wouldn't one expect a polynomial in
> x (or y) whose coefficient to x^i (or y^i) is the number of codewords of
> 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of Hamming weight 𝑖?
> The example below [2] illustrates my point: The code has four codewords, one
> of weight 0, two of weight 3, one of weiht 4. Sage gives x^5 + 2*x^2 + x as
> the univariate weight enumerator. I would have expected either 1 + 2*x^3 +
> x^4 or 1 + 2*y^3 + y^4.
>
> If you agree, I suggest to alter the code accordingly.
>
> Kind regards
> Barbara
> PS: I tested the code with Sage version 7.6 on an iMac.
>
>
> [1] http://doc.sagemath.org/pdf/en/reference/coding/coding.pdf
>
> [2] Sage code for the SageMathCell
>
> C= LinearCode(Matrix(GF(2),2,5, [[1,1,0,1,0], [0,0,1,1,1]]))
> print C.list()
> print C.spectrum()
> print C.weight_enumerator()
> print C.weight_enumerator(bivariate=False)
> C.weight_enumerator??
>
> http://sagecell.sagemath.org/?z=eJxztlXwycxLTSxyzk9J1fBNLCnKrNBwd9Mw0tQx0jHVUYiONtQx1DEA4VggzwDMBMLYWE1NXq6Cosy8EgVnvZzM4hINJH5xQWpySVFpLrJYeWpmekZJfGpeaW5qUWJJfhF-yaTMssSizMSSVFu3xJziVKBaLKrs7QGIgD2K&lang=sage
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Two issues about the coding theory method "weight_enumerator"
Dear Sage-Developers,
I'd like to report two issues that I came across when working with the
coding theory classes of SAGE.
1. The Sage Reference Manual: Coding Theory, Release 7.6 [1] explains on
p. 31:
weight_enumerator [...] This is the bivariate, homogeneous polynomial in
𝑥 and 𝑦 whose coefficient to x^iy^{n-i} is the number of codewords of
𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of Hamming weight 𝑖. Here, 𝑛 is the length of 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓.
Actually, Sage returns another polynomial, namely the polynomial in 𝑥
and 𝑦 whose coefficient to x^{n-i}y^i is the number of codewords of
𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of Hamming weight 𝑖. (So the roles of x and y are interchanged).
This can be directly with C.weight_enumerator?? in the example below [2].
I suggest to either change the description in the reference or to alter
the code in Sage.
2. The function weight_enumerator(bivariate=False) returns the
evaluation of the the above polynomial for y=1. Should't it be (in the
current version) the evaluation with x=1? In other words: Wouldn't one
expect a polynomial in x (or y) whose coefficient to x^i (or y^i) is the
number of codewords of 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 of Hamming weight 𝑖?
The example below [2] illustrates my point: The code has four codewords,
one of weight 0, two of weight 3, one of weiht 4. Sage gives x^5 + 2*x^2 +
x as the univariate weight enumerator. I would have expected either 1 +
2*x^3 + x^4 or 1 + 2*y^3 + y^4.
If you agree, I suggest to alter the code accordingly.
Kind regards
Barbara
PS: I tested the code with Sage version 7.6 on an iMac.
[1] http://doc.sagemath.org/pdf/en/reference/coding/coding.pdf
[2] Sage code for the SageMathCell
C= LinearCode(Matrix(GF(2),2,5, [[1,1,0,1,0], [0,0,1,1,1]]))
print C.list()
print C.spectrum()
print C.weight_enumerator()
print C.weight_enumerator(bivariate=False)
C.weight_enumerator??
http://sagecell.sagemath.org/?z=eJxztlXwycxLTSxyzk9J1fBNLCnKrNBwd9Mw0tQx0jHVUYiONtQx1DEA4VggzwDMBMLYWE1NXq6Cosy8EgVnvZzM4hINJH5xQWpySVFpLrJYeWpmekZJfGpeaW5qUWJJfhF-yaTMssSizMSSVFu3xJziVKBaLKrs7QGIgD2K&lang=sage
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
