Re: [sage-support] Re: typo in simplicial complex documentation?

2017-06-11 Thread John H Palmieri 
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:13:52 AM UTC-7, David Joyner wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:30 AM, John H Palmieri 
>  wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 7:05:49 PM UTC-7, David Joyner wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:49 PM, John H Palmieri  
> >> wrote: 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 5:16:15 PM UTC-7, David Joyner wrote: 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Hi all: 
> >> >> 
> >> >> This is kind of a newbie question, as I'm not an expert on 
> simplicial 
> >> >> complexes. It's also a minor technical issue on the documentation, 
> not 
> >> >> the code. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'm trying to debug some code of mine and, on reading the 
> >> >> documentation for chain_complex on 
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/homology/sage/homology/simplicial_complex.html,
>  
>
> >> >> found this: "The rows and columns of the boundary matrices are 
> indexed 
> >> >> by the lists given by the n_cells() method, which by default are 
> >> >> sorted." On the other hand, the documentation for n_cells has this 
> >> >> statement: "Sort the list if the argument sort is True. If sort is 
> >> >> None (the default), then sort depending on the value of the 
> >> >> sort_facets parameter (from  the initialization of the simplicial 
> >> >> complex)." However, the sort_facets parameter (unless I'm mistaken) 
> >> >> does not sort the individual faces but rather sorts the vertices in 
> >> >> each facet. 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > The documentation means that if "sort_facets" was True originally, 
> then 
> >> > n_cells will also sort its result before returning it. ("then sort 
> >> > depending 
> >> > on the value of the sort_facets parameter": so if sort_facets was 
> True, 
> >> > then 
> >> > n_cells should also sort. It doesn't mean "sort using the effect of 
> the 
> >> > sort_facets parameter", but sort depending on its value, which is 
> True 
> >> > or 
> >> > False. This could be made clearer, I guess.) 
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> To be clear, I am getting different computations using the same sage 
> >> computations on different machines. One (recent, but used, linux) 
> >> machine consistently gives ones result, the other gives (randomly?) 
> >> several others. The "other" (a 8 yr old, a mac with possibly memory 
> >> issues) machine gives different results. I'm not saying your methods 
> >> are machine dependent, just that *for me* they seem to be. 
> >> 
> >> To be clear, these "inconsistent" computations take at least one day. 
> >> The "toy" (consistent) examples are okay. 
> > 
> > 
> > That's strange. Are you just getting different orders when you sort, or 
> > different answers for homology? Are the answers consistent on each 
> machine? 
> > What type of object are the vertices? 
> > 
>
> The example which gives strange output is the bipyramid complex: 
>
> S = SimplicialComplex(maximal_faces=[(1,2,3), (1,2,4),\ 
>   (1,2,5), (1,3,4),(1,3,5),(2,3,4),(2,3,5)]) 
>
> which has 9 1-faces. I'm computing the list of all stable configurations, 
> namely vectors c in ZZ^9 having non-negative components which cannot 
> fire (in the sense of chip-firing - see Duval, Klivans, Martin 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.3981.pdf) with respect to the 1-dimls 
> simplicial 
> spanning tree given by the 1-faces (1, 4), (1,5), (2,5), (3,4). On an old 
> mac running OS 10.11.6 and sage 7.2.b0, the output is usually 268125, 
> after about a day, but once I also got 137500. On a linux machine running 
> ubuntu and sage 7.3, I always get 395625. These computations use 
> the S.chain_complex.differential method to compute the 1-diml 
> combinatorial up Laplacian, Q, then does a time-consuming search. 
> (Basically, I check that no column vector q of Q, except possibly one 
> corresponding to a face in the spanning tree, has the property that 
> all components of c-q remain non-negative, except possibly those 
> corresponding to a face in the spanning tree.) 
>
> A similar computation using the 3-simplex is relatively quick and 
> always produces 
> 2500 stable configurations for both machines. 
>

The sorting was introduced after 7.2, so it's not surprising if that 
version gives different results. The sorting certainly affects the chain 
complex, and it is possible in older versions that the ordering used for 
the simplices to define the matrices for the chain complex is somewhat 
arbitrary, and not necessarily consistent with other methods for simplicial 
complexes. I would trust Sage 7.3 over 7.2 because of this sorting. I don't 
think any relevant changes have been made since 7.3, but it would be 
interesting to see if you get different results with 7.6 or 8.0.

  John

 

>
>
>
>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > I don't know if there is ever a good reason to specify 
> >> > sort_facets=False. 
> >> > Maybe we should deprecate it? 
> >> > 
> >> >> 
> >> >> In my code, I expected the faces of a fixed dimension to 
> >> >> be returned

Re: [sage-support] Re: typo in simplicial complex documentation?

2017-06-11 Thread David Joyner 
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:30 AM, John H Palmieri
 wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 7:05:49 PM UTC-7, David Joyner wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:49 PM, John H Palmieri 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 5:16:15 PM UTC-7, David Joyner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all:
>> >>
>> >> This is kind of a newbie question, as I'm not an expert on simplicial
>> >> complexes. It's also a minor technical issue on the documentation, not
>> >> the code.
>> >>
>> >> I'm trying to debug some code of mine and, on reading the
>> >> documentation for chain_complex on
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/homology/sage/homology/simplicial_complex.html,
>> >> found this: "The rows and columns of the boundary matrices are indexed
>> >> by the lists given by the n_cells() method, which by default are
>> >> sorted." On the other hand, the documentation for n_cells has this
>> >> statement: "Sort the list if the argument sort is True. If sort is
>> >> None (the default), then sort depending on the value of the
>> >> sort_facets parameter (from  the initialization of the simplicial
>> >> complex)." However, the sort_facets parameter (unless I'm mistaken)
>> >> does not sort the individual faces but rather sorts the vertices in
>> >> each facet.
>> >
>> >
>> > The documentation means that if "sort_facets" was True originally, then
>> > n_cells will also sort its result before returning it. ("then sort
>> > depending
>> > on the value of the sort_facets parameter": so if sort_facets was True,
>> > then
>> > n_cells should also sort. It doesn't mean "sort using the effect of the
>> > sort_facets parameter", but sort depending on its value, which is True
>> > or
>> > False. This could be made clearer, I guess.)
>> >
>>
>>
>> To be clear, I am getting different computations using the same sage
>> computations on different machines. One (recent, but used, linux)
>> machine consistently gives ones result, the other gives (randomly?)
>> several others. The "other" (a 8 yr old, a mac with possibly memory
>> issues) machine gives different results. I'm not saying your methods
>> are machine dependent, just that *for me* they seem to be.
>>
>> To be clear, these "inconsistent" computations take at least one day.
>> The "toy" (consistent) examples are okay.
>
>
> That's strange. Are you just getting different orders when you sort, or
> different answers for homology? Are the answers consistent on each machine?
> What type of object are the vertices?
>

The example which gives strange output is the bipyramid complex:

S = SimplicialComplex(maximal_faces=[(1,2,3), (1,2,4),\
  (1,2,5), (1,3,4),(1,3,5),(2,3,4),(2,3,5)])

which has 9 1-faces. I'm computing the list of all stable configurations,
namely vectors c in ZZ^9 having non-negative components which cannot
fire (in the sense of chip-firing - see Duval, Klivans, Martin
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.3981.pdf) with respect to the 1-dimls simplicial
spanning tree given by the 1-faces (1, 4), (1,5), (2,5), (3,4). On an old
mac running OS 10.11.6 and sage 7.2.b0, the output is usually 268125,
after about a day, but once I also got 137500. On a linux machine running
ubuntu and sage 7.3, I always get 395625. These computations use
the S.chain_complex.differential method to compute the 1-diml
combinatorial up Laplacian, Q, then does a time-consuming search.
(Basically, I check that no column vector q of Q, except possibly one
corresponding to a face in the spanning tree, has the property that
all components of c-q remain non-negative, except possibly those
corresponding to a face in the spanning tree.)

A similar computation using the 3-simplex is relatively quick and
always produces
2500 stable configurations for both machines.




>>
>>
>> > I don't know if there is ever a good reason to specify
>> > sort_facets=False.
>> > Maybe we should deprecate it?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> In my code, I expected the faces of a fixed dimension to
>> >> be returned as a deterministic sorted list not a set whose ordering
>> >> could be random. Now, it *does* seem as though the faces are sorted.
>> >> It's just that, to me, the documentation of n_cells doesn't make that
>> >> clear.
>> >>
>> >> I'm asking if I'm mis-understanding something here or not.
>> >>
>> >> - David Joyner
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups
>> > "sage-support" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> > an
>> > email to sage-support...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to sage-s...@googlegroups.com.
>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: [sage-support] Re: typo in simplicial complex documentation?

2017-06-11 Thread John H Palmieri 


On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 7:05:49 PM UTC-7, David Joyner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:49 PM, John H Palmieri  > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 5:16:15 PM UTC-7, David Joyner wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Hi all: 
> >> 
> >> This is kind of a newbie question, as I'm not an expert on simplicial 
> >> complexes. It's also a minor technical issue on the documentation, not 
> >> the code. 
> >> 
> >> I'm trying to debug some code of mine and, on reading the 
> >> documentation for chain_complex on 
> >> 
> >> 
> http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/homology/sage/homology/simplicial_complex.html,
>  
>
> >> found this: "The rows and columns of the boundary matrices are indexed 
> >> by the lists given by the n_cells() method, which by default are 
> >> sorted." On the other hand, the documentation for n_cells has this 
> >> statement: "Sort the list if the argument sort is True. If sort is 
> >> None (the default), then sort depending on the value of the 
> >> sort_facets parameter (from  the initialization of the simplicial 
> >> complex)." However, the sort_facets parameter (unless I'm mistaken) 
> >> does not sort the individual faces but rather sorts the vertices in 
> >> each facet. 
> > 
> > 
> > The documentation means that if "sort_facets" was True originally, then 
> > n_cells will also sort its result before returning it. ("then sort 
> depending 
> > on the value of the sort_facets parameter": so if sort_facets was True, 
> then 
> > n_cells should also sort. It doesn't mean "sort using the effect of the 
> > sort_facets parameter", but sort depending on its value, which is True 
> or 
> > False. This could be made clearer, I guess.) 
> > 
>
>
> To be clear, I am getting different computations using the same sage 
> computations on different machines. One (recent, but used, linux) 
> machine consistently gives ones result, the other gives (randomly?) 
> several others. The "other" (a 8 yr old, a mac with possibly memory 
> issues) machine gives different results. I'm not saying your methods 
> are machine dependent, just that *for me* they seem to be. 
>
> To be clear, these "inconsistent" computations take at least one day. 
> The "toy" (consistent) examples are okay. 
>

That's strange. Are you just getting different orders when you sort, or 
different answers for homology? Are the answers consistent on each machine? 
What type of object are the vertices?
 

>
> > I don't know if there is ever a good reason to specify 
> sort_facets=False. 
> > Maybe we should deprecate it? 
> > 
> >> 
> >> In my code, I expected the faces of a fixed dimension to 
> >> be returned as a deterministic sorted list not a set whose ordering 
> >> could be random. Now, it *does* seem as though the faces are sorted. 
> >> It's just that, to me, the documentation of n_cells doesn't make that 
> >> clear. 
> >> 
> >> I'm asking if I'm mis-understanding something here or not. 
> >> 
> >> - David Joyner 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > John 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> > "sage-support" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an 
> > email to sage-support...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to sage-s...@googlegroups.com 
> . 
> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support. 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-support] Re: Patterson Algorithm

2017-06-11 Thread Juan Grados 
Panos,
I had write patterson algorithm here
http://juaninf.blogspot.com.br/2013/04/function-make-div-with-id-mycell-sage.html
.


2017-03-07 9:47 GMT-03:00 Johan S. H. Rosenkilde :

> Hi Panos,
>
> > I finally implement the decoder using lattice basis reduction (using LLL)
>
> I presume you mean F[x]-lattice basis reduction, i.e. row reduction of
> F[x] matrices (the LLL is for integer matrices).
>
> > The only thing left is to reduce the execution time of the decoder by
> > finding the most efficient way to locate the errors via the error locator
> > poynomial (something better than chien search).
>
> Look up "multi-point evaluation" for asymptotically fast algorithms.
>
> > If you are interesting in Goppa codes there is a module named codinglib
> at
> > bitbucket witch is very helpful and a really great base.
>
> I know - I'm the author ;-) But thanks.
>
> Best,
> Johan
>
>
> Panos Phronimos writes:
>
> > Thanks Johan,
> >
> > I finally implement the decoder using lattice basis reduction (using LLL)
> > The only thing left is to reduce the execution time of the decoder by
> > finding the most efficient way to locate the errors via the error locator
> > poynomial (something better than chien search)
> > If you are interesting in Goppa codes there is a module named codinglib
> at
> > bitbucket witch is very helpful and a really great base.
>
>
> --
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
-
MSc. Juan del Carmen Grados Vásquez
Laboratório Nacional de Computação Científica
Tel: +55 21 97633 3228
(http://www.lncc.br/)
http://juaninf.blogspot.com
-

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.