I have found a bug in the definition of composition in Partition Algebras.
This bug shows up in the composition of two set partitions when the first
partition has a part of size 1. This is sufficiently basic that it makes me
wonder why this has not been noticed before.
I have also created a tic
Hi!
I noticed today that some patch between the beginning and trac_14102 in the
sage-combinat queue breaks k-Schur functions. Perhaps the partition patches?
This needs to be fixed!!!
Best,
Anne
-
sage: Sym = SymmetricFunctions(QQ)
sage: s = Sym.schur()
sage: ks = Sym.kschur(3,1)
sage: s[2,
Hi Andrew,
Travis, Nicolas and I are all at ICERM and talked about this. At the moment
it indeed seems better to just leave the structure as is and put the partition
options into the partitions file itself (since there are several projects on
partition).
Best,
Anne
On 1/29/13 9:03 PM, Andrew Ma
Hi Anne,
Thanks for your comments!
Wouldn't it suffice to have a deprecation for sage.combinat.partition in
> /combinat/partition.py and have an alias there to
> sage.combinat.partition.partition.
> That would hopefully not be too much deprecation work at all since the UI
> does
> not change
Hi Travis,
>This would change the import statements from `sage.combinat.partition` to
> `sage.combinat.partitions.partition`, thus I would think we would need some
> sort of deprecation for this for a user's .sage
> files. For the deprecation, I think what we would need to do is import all o
Hey Anne,
Thanks for your work on this!
XD I say Andrew is doing the hard work on this.
> > I am reviewing Travis' patch #13605 which is great as it implements some
> needed improvements. I have a few minor issues which I think shouldn't be
> decided between just the two of us -- apologie
Hi Andrew and Travis,
Thanks for your work on this!
> I am reviewing Travis' patch #13605 which is great as it implements some
> needed improvements. I have a few minor issues which I think shouldn't be
> decided between just the two of us -- apologies if I
> am being too precious here!
>
> On
Hi Everyone,
I am reviewing Travis' patch #13605 which is great as it implements some
needed improvements. I have a few minor issues which I think shouldn't be
decided between just the two of us -- apologies if I am being too precious
here!
Only fans of partitions are likely to be interested
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 01:31:28AM -0800, Andrew Mathas wrote:
>AH, I guess that "reverse lexicographic" is ambiguous as it could mean
>either reading the words in the reverse order or simply reversing the
>partial order.
FWIW, In commutative algebra, and about ter
> Ah I see. I will implement a (naive) __reversed__() method for the
> partitions (see http://docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#reversed)
> since we've removed __len__() from the partition parents. That way you can
> just call `reversed(Partitions(5))` to iterate through in reverse. Exp
Hey Andrew,
> I will do "reverse lex" (lex order read from right to left) and "reverse
>> dominance" (which I presume is partial sums from right to left). However
>> what is reverse containment?
>>
>
> AH, I guess that "reverse lexicographic" is ambiguous as it could mean
> either reading th
>
> I will do "reverse lex" (lex order read from right to left) and "reverse
> dominance" (which I presume is partial sums from right to left). However
> what is reverse containment?
>
AH, I guess that "reverse lexicographic" is ambiguous as it could mean
either reading the words in the reve
Hey Andrew,
>
> The easy one first: should the reverse ordering also exist? That is,
> "reverse lex", "reverse dominance", "reverse containment"? If people agree
> that it is worth including these explicitly it would be good if there was a
> systematic way to organise all of the orderings...w
> Basically you would like the iterator to return a linear extension of the
> ordering? That might be possible if by considering the poset given by
> the partial order.
>
> Yes, that's right. This is most sensible for total orderings, but for
partial orders the iterator could return a non-can
Hi Andrew and Travis,
> The easy one first: should the reverse ordering also exist? That is, "reverse
> lex", "reverse dominance", "reverse containment"? If people agree that it is
> worth including these explicitly it would be
> good if there was a systematic way to organise all of the ordering
Hi Travis,
I have twos questions about the order options that have appeared in your
partition clean-ups.
The easy one first: should the reverse ordering also exist? That is,
"reverse lex", "reverse dominance", "reverse containment"? If people agree
that it is worth including these explicitly i
Hey everyone,
Here's the current update of the options patch #13605:
- I've added "containment" as an additional order option which are set in
the parent objects
- I've had to leave `Partitions_all` alone for the most part, deprecating
it caused pickling/TestSuite errors I couldn't figure ou
Thanks Andrew!
Travis
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:29:37 PM UTC-8, Andrew Mathas wrote:
>
> On 14/11/12 6:24 AM, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
> Also in regard to the partition options patch, I can't seem to find the
> Partitions_all_cache when the queue is applied up to there (I'm running
> 5
On 14/11/12 6:24 AM, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
Also in regard to the partition options patch, I can't seem to find the
Partitions_all_cache when the queue is applied up to there (I'm running
5.4.beta1).
Hi Travis,
I had a look at the patch queue and Partitions_all_cache was added by
partition
Hi!
FYI, further rebasing of tableaux-combinatorics-am.patch seems to be
needed. I'm going to disable it temporarily so the queue applies.
cheers,
Hugh
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To view this discussion on the
Hi Travis,
You should probably also deprecate
sage.combinat.partition.Partitions_all_cache. Currently, this causing
issues for skew_partition.py which calls this once.
Andrew
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To view thi
Hey Hugh,
No problem. Sorry this has been such a hassle.
Also, I've rebased concrete_combinatorial_statistics_and_maps-cs.patch
(with Christian's approval), so the whole queue should (at present) apply
cleanly.
Best,
Travis
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:54:20 PM UTC-8, Hugh Thomas wrote:
Thanks, Travis and Andrew, for the rebasing and the explanations.
cheers,
Hugh
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-combinat-devel/-/Sc6RpTfMtY
Hey Nicolas,
This could be a good candidate for a lazy_import.
>
>
I'll give it a try.
Hey Hugh,
What Andrew said was correct, it's because we are removing
Partition_class. I will setup an alias with a deprecation warning.
Best,
Travis
--
You received this message because you are subscrib
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:35:34AM -0800, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> In cleaning up the import statements (in my definition of cleanup, and
>if I shouldn't touch import statements, please let me know), I noticed an
>interesting quirk, partition.py needs to import skew_partition.py,
>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 05:49:47PM -0800, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> In all honesty, I almost feel like any comparison should do a coercion
>into a common parent and check there, and if not possible, then raise an
>exception. However this is likely to be a major overhaul and break a fe
> The patch kshape-om.py now produces an import error at Sage startup
> ("cannot import name Partition_class"). I'm guessing this has to do with
> Travis's work on partitions.
>
Yes, it's because kshape.py imports Partition_class rather than Partition.
I've rebased my patch and uploadded
Hi--
The patch kshape-om.py now produces an import error at Sage startup
("cannot import name Partition_class"). I'm guessing this has to do with
Travis's work on partitions.
I have disabled it for now.
cheers,
Hugh
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Hey Nicolas,
If it was just for me, I would forbid to compare with '<' two objects
> with different parents (possibly with some well chosen exceptions like
> 1/2 < 1).
>
> In other words: if you get into a situation where you have a serious
> doubt about the semantic (and thus probably even mo
Hey Hugh, Florent, and Andrew,
- I rebased the partition_leg_speedup-fh.patch since noone has seems to
have touched it in awhile and I making partitions.py Python 3 compliant.
- I disabled partitions_speedup_jb.patch since I wanted to ask if it is
okay that I remove this since I ended up incorp
Hi!
tableaux-combinatorics-am.patch needs to be rebased on top of Travis's
patch trac_13605-partition_options-ts.patch. (Andrew's patch edits some
doctests that Travis has removed, and there are some changes to import
statements -- nothing looks very complicated.)
cheers,
Hugh
--
You rece
Hi Travis--
Also, you seem to have incorporated the (unique, small) change from
partition_speedup_jb.patch, so it doesn't apply either.
cheers,
Hugh
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To view this discussion on the web v
Hi!
Florent's patch partition_leg_length_speedup-fh.patch no longer applies
over trac_13605-partition_options-ts.patch. The relevant change is just to
the format of a raise ValueError, so it would be easy enough either not to
make the change in 13605, or to rebase Florent's patch.
cheers,
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:04:17AM -0800, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> For doing the ordering option, how do we want to compare two elements
>with different ordering on parents? In particular if we do ordering using
>the left argument, we'd have (this is not yet in the queue):
> sa
Hey everyone,
Just checking since I haven't followed seriously sage-combinat-devel
> lately; for the semantic-changing options:
>
> +1 on Partitions(order=...)
> -1 on Partitions().options(order=...)
>
For doing the ordering option, how do we want to compare two elements
with differen
On 11/5/12 6:50 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:15:35PM +0100, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
>>> Granted: there should be an abstract class for word-like objects (or
>>> more possibly generally objects with labels), and this method should
>>> be implemented there. But in the me
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:15:35PM +0100, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> > Granted: there should be an abstract class for word-like objects (or
> > more possibly generally objects with labels), and this method should
> > be implemented there. But in the mean time just leave it there.
>
> Note that the
> Granted: there should be an abstract class for word-like objects (or
> more possibly generally objects with labels), and this method should
> be implemented there. But in the mean time just leave it there.
Note that the terminology is not uniform. Among others
* evaluation
* Parikh vector
* A
Hi Travis!
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0700, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>+1 on Partitions(order=...)
>-1 on Partitions().options(order=...)
>
>I'm currently planning on changing it to the first way.
Thanks!
> >- Deprecating the following methods and cla
Hey Nicolas,
> >- IntegerListsLex no longer inherits from CombinatorialClass, but
> instead
> >from Parent with elements of ClonableArray
>
> Have you made some timings to measure the improvement?
>
No I haven't. I just remove the (deprecated-ish) CombinatorialClass and
made sure I
Hi Travis!
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:02:08PM -0700, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> Here's the state of the #13605 patch and what it currently is doing:
Thanks for all your hard work! Yippee in particular for long desired
things like:
>- IntegerListsLex no longer inherits from Combi
Hey everyone,
Here's the state of the #13605 patch and what it currently is doing:
- Added partition options which can do French/English, latex outputs,
Ferrers' diagram characters, some ordering
- Deprecating the following methods and classes:
* evaluation()
* dominate() -- Changed n
Hi Rishi,
It is a bug, I saw it reported on trac.sagemath.org previously, but
can't find it anymore.
Paul
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM, r Rishikesh wrote:
> In sage, the following succeeds.
>
> sage: Partition([2,0,1])
>
>
> I would expect this not to succeed. Is this a bug or there is a reaso
In sage, the following succeeds.
sage: Partition([2,0,1])
I would expect this not to succeed. Is this a bug or there is a reason
for this construction to work.
Rishi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To post to this grou
Hi Anne,
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:43:52PM -0700, Anne Schilling wrote:
> Trying to get to coefficients of certain terms in symmetric functions, I am
> running
> into trouble:
>
> sage: ks = kSchurFunctions(QQ,3,t=1)
> sage: f=ks([3,2])+ks([2])
> sage: f.monomial_coefficients()
> {[3, 2
Hi!
Trying to get to coefficients of certain terms in symmetric functions, I am
running
into trouble:
sage: ks = kSchurFunctions(QQ,3,t=1)
sage: f=ks([3,2])+ks([2])
sage: f.monomial_coefficients()
{[3, 2]: 1, [2]: 1}
sage: f.monomial_coefficients().keys()[1].parent()
Partitions of the integer 2
Mike Hansen writes:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Martin Rubey
> wrote:
>> m = l
>> while not m and m[-1] == 0:
>> del m[-1]
>>
>> is destructive on l.
>
> "m = l" just makes m point to the same object that l is pointing to.
> This would work and should be the fastest of the bunch.
>
> d
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Martin Rubey
wrote:
> m = l
> while not m and m[-1] == 0:
> del m[-1]
>
> is destructive on l.
"m = l" just makes m point to the same object that l is pointing to.
This would work and should be the fastest of the bunch.
def f4(l):
m = l[:]
while not
Sorry for the amount of spam...
I checked the following:
def f1(l):
m = copy(l)
while not len(m) == 0 and m[-1] == 0:
m.pop()
return m
def f2(l):
m = []
for e in l:
if e == 0:
m.reverse()
return m
m.insert(0, e)
m.reverse()
Martin Rubey writes:
> Florent Hivert writes:
>
>>> > Otherwise probably
>>> >
>>> > l.reverse()
>>> > m = l
>>> > while m[0] == 0:
>>> > m = m[1:]
>>> > l.reverse()
>>> > m.reverse()
>>> > return m
>>>
>>> You can do that better with
>>>
>>> while not m and m[-1] == 0:
>>> m.pop()
>>
Florent Hivert writes:
>> > Otherwise probably
>> >
>> > l.reverse()
>> > m = l
>> > while m[0] == 0:
>> > m = m[1:]
>> > l.reverse()
>> > m.reverse()
>> > return m
>>
>> You can do that better with
>>
>> while not m and m[-1] == 0:
>> m.pop()
>
> Sorry for being stupid:
>
> while not
> > Otherwise probably
> >
> > l.reverse()
> > m = l
> > while m[0] == 0:
> > m = m[1:]
> > l.reverse()
> > m.reverse()
> > return m
>
> You can do that better with
>
> while not m and m[-1] == 0:
> m.pop()
Sorry for being stupid:
while not m and m[-1] == 0:
del m[-1]
is probab
> Otherwise probably
>
> l.reverse()
> m = l
> while m[0] == 0:
> m = m[1:]
> l.reverse()
> m.reverse()
> return m
You can do that better with
while not m and m[-1] == 0:
m.pop()
Cheers,
Florent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combi
Hi Martin,
> >> Doesn't python support things like
>
> [i for i in [1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0] while i > 0]
>
> [1,1]
The following is not very pretty but works:
sage: import itertools
sage: list(itertools.takewhile(lambda i:i>0, (i for i in [1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0])))
[1, 1]
Cheers,
Florent
--
You
Alex Ghitza writes:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 10:09:13 +0200, Martin Rubey
> wrote:
>> Doesn't python support things like
>>
>> [i for i in [3,2,1,0,0] while i>0]
>
> sage: [i for i in [3,2,1,0,0] if i>0]
> [3, 2, 1]
>
>> (I hate python)
>
> That's too bad :)
Please follow the thread before posti
On Mon, 03 May 2010 10:09:13 +0200, Martin Rubey
wrote:
> Doesn't python support things like
>
> [i for i in [3,2,1,0,0] while i>0]
sage: [i for i in [3,2,1,0,0] if i>0]
[3, 2, 1]
> (I hate python)
That's too bad :)
Best,
Alex
--
Alex Ghitza -- http://aghitza.org/
Lecturer in Mathematics
"Nicolas M. Thiery" writes:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:28:43PM -0700, Anne Schilling wrote:
>> This looks like a bug. You should probably open a ticket!
>>
>> Anne
>>
>> Martin Rubey wrote:
>> >Is this intentional?
>> >
>> >sage: Partition([1,1,1,0,1,1])
>> >[1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
>
> The documentat
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:28:43PM -0700, Anne Schilling wrote:
> This looks like a bug. You should probably open a ticket!
>
> Anne
>
> Martin Rubey wrote:
> >Is this intentional?
> >
> >sage: Partition([1,1,1,0,1,1])
> >[1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
The documentation of Partition specifies that trailing zer
Hi Martin,
This looks like a bug. You should probably open a ticket!
Anne
Martin Rubey wrote:
Is this intentional?
sage: Partition([1,1,1,0,1,1])
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
Martin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To post to thi
Is this intentional?
sage: Partition([1,1,1,0,1,1])
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
Martin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-de...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send e
60 matches
Mail list logo
