Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update API functions for non-integer stoichiometry #489

Open
isaacsas opened this issue Mar 2, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Update API functions for non-integer stoichiometry #489

isaacsas opened this issue Mar 2, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@isaacsas
Copy link
Member

isaacsas commented Mar 2, 2022

Some API functions will need to get updated for non-integer stoichiometry, or have it documented that they won't work with floats or syms.

@yewalenikhil65
Copy link
Contributor

Is the definition of stoichiometry matrices etc same when we consider non-integer case?

Where can i find formal definitions for such case?

@isaacsas
Copy link
Member Author

isaacsas commented Mar 2, 2022

I have no idea :) Never looked into it.

But we can still make the basic stoichiometry matrices as dense matrices at least, it is just they may have floating point values or even symbolic values. All the higher level analysis with complexes and such should probably just error (like it will right now I think).

@isaacsas
Copy link
Member Author

isaacsas commented Mar 2, 2022

But I don't see why the definition would change for the basic substrate, product and net stoichiometric matrices. It is more that I haven't thought about whether the various analyses we have still make sense in these cases. (Certainly with symbolic variables many of them just won't even be possible to do...)

@yewalenikhil65
Copy link
Contributor

I will try to find more about this next week. (Especially about non-integer complex stoichiometry ) I think , even for complex stoichiometric matrix (Z) , it won't matter much if entries are non-integer. Incidence matrix remains same as previous.

@isaacsas
Copy link
Member Author

isaacsas commented Mar 3, 2022

Sounds good. Please do link any good references you find in this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants