I'll be happy to help reviewing a ticket on SPQR-trees. Definitively useful. An option could be to interface OGDF - Open Graph Drawing Framework (http://www.ogdf.net/). It has static and dynamic implementations of SPQRtrees, but it might be too challenging for a first contribution. David.
Le mardi 18 octobre 2016 19:59:09 UTC+2, Joshua Fallon a écrit : > > Hi all, Sage rookie here. I've been working on writing functions to test > whether a graph can be embedded on the projective plane, as in Myrvold and > Roth's paper ( > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.45.1102&rep=rep1&type=pdf). > > I'm still working out some bugs, and working on transitioning from Sage > functions to adding methods to the graphs class, but I think this could be > a useful tool for Sage to have. My first step is a decomposition of > two-connected graphs into three-blocks (cycles, cocycles, and 3-connected > graphs) as described by Tutte and Cunningham and Edmonds (or call it > SPQR-trees, if you like). I have this method in my local Sage source code > and I think it's worthwhile to have in its own right alongside > blocks_and_cuts_tree. I'd like to use this smaller method to make a first > small foray into actual contribution to Sage. > > Is it worth requesting a trac account now for the decomposition, or should > I hold off until the whole embeddability tester is running in my local > source code (assuming there's interest in that function itself)? > > Best, > Joshua Fallon > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
