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
A constructor for the Brouwer-Haemers graph #14514
Comments
comment:1
With a Sexyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy embedding Nathann |
comment:2
Hello!! The patch is fine! I would only add the following test.
So that we have as much new tests as possible! Otherwise the whole testing of the graph theory module finishes too quickly !!! BTW. I was wondering if its time to redesign this graph database thing. If we keep adding "specific" graphs the codebase will explode with code that basically just constructs new objects. One thing that I would suggest for all fixed graphs, compute their sparse6/graph6 string (whichever is shorter) and simply have Graph(thestring) in the given method? Or perhaps have a data file with graphs/sparse6 strings/layouts and load that at runtime or something? What do you think ?? |
comment:3
Yoooooooooo !!
Done !
Ahem. Yeah, good point
Yep. I don't like it either.
Once again : I don't like the way we do things now either. But replacing the methods with sparse6 string means that our graphs are "proprietary" graphs how they are built is also a nice information to have around. Plus we lose layouts, the vertices' names (which may contain some information too). And it would only shorten the smallgraphs file, not the constructors that actually build families of graphs.
I think that we will need to have an index of all sparse6 string of the graphs we have in Sage at some point. When we will want Sage to answer questions like "Have you ever seen this graph ?". But if we do have such an index, I think that we will still have the methods around at the same time. They don't have the same purpose. But still, I don't like it either What do you think ? Patch updated, by the way ! Nathann |
comment:4
Replying to @nathanncohen:
I agree. Somehow we want to balance usability and performance without making a bloated module. I don't see a solution for that though :-)
Yes. I was also thinking about that. To have some method of the form "nameGraph()" returning the name of a given graph (if known) or perhaps a construction of it in the sense "cartesian product of petersen and 5-cycle" But this again sounds like a messy thing to implement :-)
Patch is fine I'm gonna change the status to reflect that.
|
Reviewer: Jernej Azarija |
comment:6
Well... For sure we will need a db at some point... For sure the function will answer "I've never seen this graph in my life" most of the time. But it is not necessarily complicated to implement.. Oh, and by the way we already have a small database of graphs from ISGCI #14396. It's a good thing to have around, though it also looks like there will be a lot of duplicated information if we ever do that ;-)
Thanks ! Nathann |
Dependencies: #14283 |
comment:7
There is a conflict with #14283. |
comment:9
Done ! |
comment:10
PLEASE RUN DOCTESTS BEFORE SETTING A PATCH TO NEEDS_REVIEW OR POSITIVE_REVIEW
|
Attachment: trac_14514.patch.gz |
comment:11
Fixed....... Nathann |
Merged: sage-5.10.beta2 |
As the title says !
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/graphs/Brouwer-Haemers.html
Nathann
Depends on #14283
CC: @sagetrac-azi
Component: graph theory
Author: Nathann Cohen
Reviewer: Jernej Azarija
Merged: sage-5.10.beta2
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14514
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: