> One use case for statistics which comes to my mind immediately is to provide > answers to
Just to make sure : I *NEVER* said that statistics on combinatorial objects were useless, did I ? My objections are related to the code that is included in Sage, and how it is written. > http://mathoverflow.net/questions/101265/a-list-of-symmetric-statistics/101670#101670 > > although I have to admit that a) I asked the question myself and b) I did > not give any "deep" reason to ask the question. Does not matter. I mean, the job of many of us is to do maths. We just need this information for our job. The whole of OEIS is useful, and a good thing, even if you find a couple of sequences there that are a bit far-fetched :-P > Another use case (again for statistics) is that from time to time I > encounter a set of families of objects (eg 0-1 fiillings of Ferrers diagrams > of a given shape) with a natural statistic (eg. length of longest north-east > chain) and then I'd like to run a brute force search whether I can find a > "well-known" statistic equidistributed with my statistic when restricting to > some family (eg., a particular shape). Statistics *ARE* useful. And we can query the OEIS from Sage, and this is cool too. > Besides: is it possible to run a "more exhaustive" FindStat search? If I > understand correctly, FindStat limits itself to 3 maps, right? I guess they can. But you see, FindStat is not exactly part of Sage, and for FindStat question the FindStat guys can answer, for they run this code, sage developpers have no hand on it :-) Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
