Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Order of Partitions()

2015-03-18 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
Hi! Thanks everyone for your input. We are banging hard on IntegerListLex at Sage Days 64, and hopefully will get a correct and as fast as previously implementation in the coming days. Don't hold your breath, but the point is that it's likely that the "non lex is faster" is only a temporar

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Order of Partitions()

2015-03-18 Thread Darij Grinberg
Hi, please don't make a distinction based on the n being less than 15! That would make a really bad pitfall. Best regards, Darij On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Viviane Pons wrote: > > > 2015-03-18 12:40 GMT+01:00 Mike Zabrocki : > >> That would make sense. My preference is that (at leas

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Order of Partitions()

2015-03-18 Thread Viviane Pons
2015-03-18 12:40 GMT+01:00 Mike Zabrocki : > That would make sense. My preference is that (at least for values less > than 15) the default is that the output is sorted and this can be > controlled by the optional parameter. > > I think about how many times that I test symmetric function identitie

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Order of Partitions()

2015-03-18 Thread Mike Zabrocki
That would make sense. My preference is that (at least for values less than 15) the default is that the output is sorted and this can be controlled by the optional parameter. I think about how many times that I test symmetric function identities on partitions and realize that patterns that ind

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Order of Partitions()

2015-03-18 Thread Samuel Lelievre
Nathann Cohen wrote: > > Hello, > > > I think that Partitions should be output in either lex (or possibly > reverse > > lex) since this order is compatible with dominance order. > > I only want to bring to your attention that deciding in which order > the partitions should be returned is not f

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Order of Partitions()

2015-03-17 Thread Mike Zabrocki
I agree that this is a decision that would have to weigh between cost in speed and convenience. For small values of n the speedup will be small but that is where order is more useful. For large values of n the order is probably less important. Correct results are clearly the most important c

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Order of Partitions()

2015-03-17 Thread Nathann Cohen
Hello, > I think that Partitions should be output in either lex (or possibly reverse > lex) since this order is compatible with dominance order. I only want to bring to your attention that deciding in which order the partitions should be returned is not free in terms of computational time. The c

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Order of Partitions()

2015-03-17 Thread Mike Zabrocki
I think that Partitions should be output in either lex (or possibly reverse lex) since this order is compatible with dominance order. One example where this arises is the transition matrix between certain bases factors into an upper and lower triangular matrix when the basis elements are ordere

Re: [sage-combinat-devel] Re: Order of Partitions()

2015-03-15 Thread Anne Schilling
Dear Jeroen, The order of strong order tableaux does not really matter. One place where it might slightly matter might be in character tables of the symmetric group. As far as I remember they are just matrices where rows and columns are indexed by integers rather than by partitions. In this case

[sage-combinat-devel] Re: Order of Partitions()

2015-03-15 Thread Samuel Lelievre
cc: sage-combinat-devel 2015-03-15 11:27:33 UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer: > > Hello, > > currently in Sage, Partitions() are returned in reverse-lexicographic > order. But is this order (which is nowhere documented as far as I can > tell) really important? I am trying to fix Partitions and other relat