Re: [sage-devel] Re: Possible Bug in weight_distribution for binary linear codes.

2011-06-10 Thread David Joyner
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Maarten Derickx wrote: > To solve this problem you can offcourse put your generator matrix in > echelon form and remove the nonzero rows. He check might not be in the > code for performance reasons but I didn't wrote the code so I'm not > sure. > > Maybe the best w

[sage-devel] Re: Possible Bug in weight_distribution for binary linear codes.

2011-06-10 Thread Maarten Derickx
To solve this problem you can offcourse put your generator matrix in echelon form and remove the nonzero rows. He check might not be in the code for performance reasons but I didn't wrote the code so I'm not sure. Maybe the best way to solve this problem is to standardly check for full rank and ha

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Possible Bug in weight_distribution for binary linear codes.

2011-06-09 Thread D. Monarres
David, I am a bit embarrassed then. Sorry for the mix up, I should have more carefully read the documentation. David (also) -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Possible Bug in weight_distribution for binary linear codes.

2011-06-09 Thread David Joyner
In the first paragraph of the documentation it says: "If its dimension is denoted k then we typically store a basis of C as a kxn matrix, with rows the basis vectors. It is called the generator matrix of C." I personally define a generator matrix to be a full rank matrix. I assumed that this was

[sage-devel] Re: Possible Bug in weight_distribution for binary linear codes.

2011-06-09 Thread D. Monarres
This also seems to cause problems with decoding. I am posting here just to make sure that this would actually be considered a bug, not just user error. Everything works as expected when I construct the same code with a full rank generator matrix. (with C defined as before) sage: C.deco