Nathann - Looks great - thanks! -Rob
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 3:38:41 AM UTC-7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Helloo,
>
> > Yes, I think if the documentation screams "implements a symmetric
> relation"
> > that would be a big improvement. And maybe a doctest illustrating how
> it
> > c
Helloo,
> Yes, I think if the documentation screams "implements a symmetric relation"
> that would be a big improvement. And maybe a doctest illustrating how it
> can go bad?
I added a mention that the function should be symmetric, and just
pushed a new doctest for that:
http://git.sag
Dear Nathann,
Yes, I think if the documentation screams "implements a symmetric relation"
that would be a big improvement. And maybe a doctest illustrating how it
can go bad?
Thanks very much for looking after this one. I am a little familiar with
that constructor, I'm sure you will have fuu
> But we should have a documented unified policy to this. As an example, if
> Graph(.., f) assumes f to be symmetric without checking, then Poset(..., f)
> should assume that f does not define a loop on elements and so on.
Right now the Poset function does not delegate the job of building the
digr
Quoting Nathann Cohen :
So should the "edge-detection" function be required to return true for any
pair of vertices joined by an edge, or should there be an edge constructed
between any pair of vertices for which the edge-detection function returns
true?
The best for me is to request that the
Hello,
Sorry for the change in behaviour, perhaps I should write somewhere that
'f' must be symmetric. I could do so in #19390, for it actually cleans the
constructor code and their documentation.
So should the "edge-detection" function be required to return true for any
> pair of vertices joi
Well, the first thing I tried was (i-j)^2 == 1. ;-)
Partially answering my own question, by reading the code (graphs/graph.py):
from itertools import combinations
self.add_vertices(verts)
self.add_edges(e for e in combinations(verts,2) if f(*e))
self.add_edges((v,v) for v in verts if f(v,v))
I would rather use
P9 = Graph([[0..8], lambda i,j: abs(i-j) == 1])
since edges have no reason to be ordered with i>j or i
The following used to work (based on regular private doctesting outside of
Sage source code) and give you the path you wanted:
P9 = Graph([[0..8], lambda i,j: i-j == 1])
The following used to work (based on regular private doctesting outside of
Sage source code) and give you the path you wanted:
P9 = Graph([[0..8], lambda i,j: i-j == 1])
Now it silently produces an empty graph (9 vertices, no edges). The fix:
P9 = Graph([[0..8], lambda i,j: i-j == -1])
Is thi
I was playing with some big(10^6) graphs and noticed SAGE cannot
handle constructing them in good time. However, networkx does just
fine. Before I dive into the code, is this a feature (i.e. sage graph
object has richer data and methods available) or this is a bug?
sage: D={}
sage: for i in xrang
10 matches
Mail list logo
