Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
SHADOWS #1508 - Don't commit #1498
referenced this pull request
Aug 18, 2012
SymPy Bot Summary:
Test command: setup.py test
Interpreter: /usr/local/bin/python2.5 (2.5.6-final-0)
Test results html report: http://reviews.sympy.org/report/agZzeW1weTNyDAsSBFRhc2sYirsjDA
Interpreter: /usr/bin/python2.7 (2.7.3-candidate-2)
Test results html report: http://reviews.sympy.org/report/agZzeW1weTNyDAsSBFRhc2sYmNojDA
Interpreter: /usr/bin/python3.2 (3.2.3-candidate-2)
Test results html report: http://reviews.sympy.org/report/agZzeW1weTNyDAsSBFRhc2sY8LYiDA
Build HTML Docs:
Docs build command: make html-errors
Test results html report: http://reviews.sympy.org/report/agZzeW1weTNyDAsSBFRhc2sYibsjDA
Automatic review by SymPy Bot.
I see that some of the stuff concerning cyclic forms in permutations.py is modified here. I'm currently working on excluding singleton cycles from the cyclic form. My approach is the following: I add a
I thought of this, too, but the problem is that you don't know if they left out higher singletons (e.g. should  be in the permutation?)
If you want to exclude them in the returned value of cyclic_form you can use the method
If you have a 1-based cyclic_form you can use the function cyclic(cycle_form, n) to fill it out with singletons. I think I will modify it so you can optionally not subtract 1 from each element.
I wouldn't have been able to even talk about this 2 days ago, but I did a lot to combinaatorics over the past few days, so if you want to discuss this more it would be helpful.
OK, so now you can convert a 0-based cyclic form into a 1-based cyclic form with or without singletons by using the one_based() function.
1-based -> 0-based-full with cyclic
@smichr : the problem with higher singletons can be fixed in one of two ways:
And by the way, are we going to switch to 1-based form only? It's going to be hard and make the code uglier than it is right now; also, is it a good idea to have two standards for representing permutations -- isn't that going to get confusing?
While building docs:
@jrioux , I got the sphinx working here and can check my own work now. The wrapping of the first See Also in partitions looks bad, however, as it appears to be trying to fill the paragraph instead of using ragged-right filling. And I added the LatticeOps change here to see that it would work in tests but will rebase this out once your request is in.
I did a total overhaul on #531. There are some other issues that were addressed along the way (e.g. quick_sort for LatticeOps args and dealing with evalf(1)) since these were causing test failures. I have already reviewed @saptman 's work but now need someone to look over the changes that I've made.