-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 407
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
Add "Standard example" poset #19690
Comments
Changed keywords from none to poset |
Author: Kevin Dilks, Jori Mäntysalo |
Changed branch from u/jmantysalo/add__standard_example__poset to none |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Commit: |
comment:4
Nathann, you already saw this in #19383, so I guess this is an easy review. Documentation could be extended and said that Dedekind-Macneille completion of standard example is the Boolean lattice. (That is, this is also kind of standard example showing that completion by cuts can be exponential in size.) But then, doc can not say every mathematical fact. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:5
It is, but I do not agree with the terminology and so I chose to not review it. |
comment:6
Replying to @nathanncohen:
Duh. Travis? |
comment:7
About terminology: in issue 2/2015 of Order there is a paper titled "Standard Examples as Subposets of Posets". I just can not see what else the name of the poset should be. |
comment:8
John, if you are interested in names... What about this one? |
comment:9
If the name seems to be widely accepted, okay, but add a reference. |
comment:10
Replying to @jhpalmieri:
What kind of reference? Googling founds books "Handbook of Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics" and "Introduction to Lattice Theory with Computer Science Applications" and there are many papers. And Wikipedia uses the term. But what is more important, I have not seen this poset named as something else, and neither seen "standard poset" used to refer any other poset. |
comment:11
I don't know why you are resistant to adding a reference; what harm can it possibly cause? Can't adding a reference only improve the situation? Anyway, you asked my opinion. At least one other person expressed the same opinion. Use wikipedia or use some other reference; I'm not a poset expert, so I don't know what reference would be most definitive. |
comment:12
Replying to @jhpalmieri:
No no, I am not against. My question was not rhetorical, but I really asked what the reference should be. |
comment:13
I would add both references. I made a few tweaks to the documentation. Once you add the references, you can set this to a positive review on my behalf (in part because I can't think of a better name at this point). New commits:
|
Changed branch from u/jmantysalo/add__standard_example__poset to u/tscrim/add_standard_example_poset-19690 |
Reviewer: Travis Scrimshaw |
Changed branch from u/tscrim/add_standard_example_poset-19690 to u/jmantysalo/add_standard_example_poset-19690 |
Changed branch from u/jmantysalo/add_standard_example_poset-19690 to |
As #19383 seems dead (and latest push do not merge anymore), I suggest adding standard example in it's own in this ticket.
It is logical to have
StandardExample(n)
to always have dimensionn
. This is not the case whenn=1
. Hence I added a restrictionn >= 2
.CC: @fchapoton @tscrim @jhpalmieri
Component: combinatorics
Keywords: poset
Author: Kevin Dilks, Jori Mäntysalo
Branch/Commit:
7c74da6
Reviewer: Travis Scrimshaw
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19690
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: