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

better code for first_descent in coxeter groups #20125

Closed
fchapoton opened this issue Feb 26, 2016 · 10 comments
Closed

better code for first_descent in coxeter groups #20125

fchapoton opened this issue Feb 26, 2016 · 10 comments

Comments

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor

I propose to treat the unit of the group in a special way. The test is cheap.

CC: @tscrim @stumpc5 @darijgr

Component: combinatorics

Keywords: coxeter

Author: Frédéric Chapoton

Branch/Commit: public/20125 @ 0c6eaaf

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20125

@fchapoton fchapoton added this to the sage-7.1 milestone Feb 26, 2016
@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

Changed keywords from none to coxeter

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

Branch: public/20125

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

Commit: 98a56f4

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

New commits:

98a56f4shortcuts for descents of the unit element in Coxeter groups

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Feb 26, 2016

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

0c6eaaftrac #20125 another try using is_one

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Feb 26, 2016

Changed commit from 98a56f4 to 0c6eaaf

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:3

This is not very convincing, it seems to be slower than before..

@tscrim
Copy link
Collaborator

tscrim commented Feb 26, 2016

comment:4

I think that because the identity element is rare, this won't really help speed up many computations because of the overhead of the extra data needed and function calls.

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:5

ok, then let us close this as invalid.

Maybe the overloading of is_one is still a good idea that could be done in #19870 ?

@fchapoton fchapoton removed this from the sage-7.1 milestone Feb 28, 2016
@tscrim
Copy link
Collaborator

tscrim commented Feb 28, 2016

comment:6

Yes, that is a good idea.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants