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
looking at the dual of a poset: IndexError #8148
Comments
comment:2
|
Attachment: trac_8148_dual_uses_poset_constructor.patch.gz |
comment:3
I guess this fix should help -- dual() created new Poset using FinitePoset constructor that requires a DiGraph in its argument to be rather refined one. Especially that the range(n) should be a linear extension of poset defined by a DiGraph. That wasn't true, because dual() reversed the orientation of edges. Poset constructor is much more liberal. |
comment:4
This is probably the best fix at the moment (although it would be nice if FinitePoset() could be used by itself). For the patch, can you add the ticket number to the doctest somewhere? I would also create a "TESTS:" section under examples, since this isn't really a useful example independent of the fact that it demonstrates this bug. You can give the doctest a little introduction, too. For example,
It's the double-colon that says "here comes a doctest." |
comment:5
Attachment: trac_8148_dual_correctly_constructs_FinitePoset.patch.gz Thanks! I tried to rewrite this to use FinitePoset immediately. Does it make sense? I tried to run it to few examples, but maybe there is something I overlooked. |
comment:6
Hi! Sorry, I should have been more reactive to spare you this patch. In principle, this is fixed by #10998 which is almost finished, and I hope to get in soon. Could you double check this? Cheers, |
comment:7
Hi, I guess such situations are inevitable in distributed projects. :-) Your patch really solves this issue. |
comment:8
(the procedure for closing tickets... positive review + milestone to wontfix) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Reviewer: Lukáš Lánský |
In Sage 4.3.2.alpha0:
Note that the following works, and is what I'm using in my code right now:
Actually, though, this fails if Q is defined instead to be
See #10998 instead.
CC: @sagetrac-sage-combinat @sagetrac-brunellus @orlitzky
Component: combinatorics
Reviewer: Lukáš Lánský
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/8148
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: