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
oval in finite projective plane #16552
Comments
comment:1
Oh... And would you know how to compute hyperovals too ? I used a LP to compute the one I needed in #16528. It's precomputer so it does not matter, but well... Nathann P.S. : Some day, all these functions will become methods of something, but I am really scared to know "what" |
Branch: u/vdelecroix/16552 |
Commit: |
comment:2
Needs review. And great speedup in the recursive constructions!! Last 10 new commits:
|
comment:3
and hyperovals are here too for |
comment:4
Ahem. Vincent, I thank you for the feature but the code really needs some reorganization First, why wouldn't the system of coordinates be provided by additional question : is the Similarly, the oval functions have no reason to return integers. They can just return the triples of coordinates. Besides, we can't just dump "Oval functions" like that in Nathann |
comment:5
Replying to @nathanncohen:
doable... You would like the answer of I would rather create a class
but it is too much work for this ticket.
No. What is well defined are the classes
Right, but in that case there is no need for a function:
The name is not quite appropriate for sure. I can call them Vincent |
comment:6
And note that we already have from
|
comment:7
Yo !
Well.... You know how I would do it ...
That would the "most proper way".
Hmmmm... Well, we will have to do that someday for many objects, it is just weird that we somehow need the objects and do not have so many functions to add to them...
Well, those three lines are all that the function should do. And as it is, it already helps dumb guys like me who did not even know (what ovals were) how to build an oval.
HMmmmmmmm.. I don't know how to implement that properly Nathann |
comment:8
Replying to @nathanncohen:
I will create a decorator
If I do this I would rewrite partly the But then comes from the problem with labels... should we steal the implementation that is in graph?
I was dump and wikipedia was my friend in that particular case.
For example:
Vincent |
comment:9
and rewriting |
comment:10
Yo !
We need a category of functions whose output depends on the input and combinatorial maps from there to everywhere else.
Honestly, if you feel like working on
Ahahahah. Well, if you want to get better performances on this kind of stuff ...
Well. If we .... sigh .... let block designs have a different ground set, we should do it in such a way that we can work with integers when we want to without being in trouble. Perhaps it just means that we need to have "integer" counterparts to every "labelled" function.
HMmmmm... I have no idea if it is the right place I really have no idea.... Nathann |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:11
Ok. Let us do that in #16553 |
Build oval from conics in Desarguesian projective plane and use MILP to look for ovals in non-Desarguesian ones.
We use it to speed up some of the Wilson construction which requires an oval.
To be rewritten over #16553
Depends on #16500
Depends on #16553
CC: @nathanncohen @brettpim
Component: combinatorial designs
Author: Vincent Delecroix
Branch/Commit: u/vdelecroix/16552 @
f7989eb
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16552
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: