Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#12925 closed enhancement (fixed)
Thematic tutorial on combinatorics
Reported by: | nthiery | Owned by: | sage-combinat |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.2 |
Component: | combinatorics | Keywords: | thematic tutorial |
Cc: | sage-combinat, hthomas | Merged in: | sage-5.2.rc0 |
Authors: | Nicolas M. Thiéry, Hugh Thomas | Reviewers: | Hugh Thomas, Nicolas M. Thiéry, Timothy Walsh |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
This ticket adds a thematic tutorial on combinatorics, translated from the combinatorics chapter of the book "Calcul Mathématique avec Sage" ![1] by Hugh Thomas. Result compiled by sphinx available on ![2]
![1] http://sagebook.gforge.inria.fr/
![2] http://combinat.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/combinat/tutorial.html
Attachments (1)
Change History (39)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc hthomas added
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Hugh Thomas, Nicolas M. Thiéry
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by
I forgot to mention that all tests pass.
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:7 follow-up: ↓ 8 Changed 9 years ago by
\dots in the source, not in math mode (eg. at line 113 of the tex source) turns into nothing in the tutorial.
Images don't seem to be working -- not Sage output figures, and not embedded figures (eg {fig:combinatoire:exemples:catalan:arbres}).
Maybe it would be nice to number the exercises, or at least indicate where a new one starts (other than by a blank line)?
The link to \ref{exo.enumeration.arbres} doesn't work (line 517 of the tex source).
Something bad happened in the conversion at line 757 in the tex source. (In the tutorial, search for "We can now calculate coefficients much further") Similar problem at line 846 of the source (search for "or, in a more readable format".
"This takes a couple seconds" doesn't appear in the tex source. It should be "a couple of seconds".
line 860: \QQ didn't convert properly (maybe because it's within a \emph?)
line 906: display didn't convert properly. (Search for "In this simple case".)
- 999: the subsubsection title Synthese didn't convert properly. And now I notice that I didn't translate the title!
- 1035: the link to a different chapter of the book doesn't work (surprise).
- 1223 \Python disappears. Again on line 1622, 1649, 2029.
- 1359: "A 3 dollar bill and a 5 dollar bill" would be better than "A 3 and a 5 dollar bir" (which is a mistake that got introduced when fixing up the conversion.
- 1496: sage output graphic doesn't appear, similarly l. 1514
l, 1570: here, exercises are labelled "Exercise" but not earlier.
- 2119: here, and elsewhere, it would be nice if the two consecutive sageexamples were displayed without a break between them.
- 2286: \command{cartesian\_product} didn't convert well.
- 2620 \latte disappears
- 2624 \palp disappears
comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 ; follow-up: ↓ 9 Changed 9 years ago by
The previous issues are fixed either by me, or by Nicolas, except:
\dots in the source, not in math mode (eg. at line 113 of the tex source) turns into nothing in the tutorial. Partial orders on a set of 8 elements, up to isomorphism -- there is a missing sage image output.
The link to \ref{exo.enumeration.arbres} doesn't work (line 517 of the tex source). Something bad happened in the conversion at line 757 in the tex source. (In the tutorial, search for "We can now calculate coefficients much further") Similar problem at line 846 of the source (search for "or, in a more readable format". line 860: \QQ didn't convert properly (maybe because it's within a \emph?)
line 906: display didn't convert properly. (Search for "In this simple case".)
- 2119: here, and elsewhere, it would be nice if the two consecutive sageexamples were displayed without a break between them.
- 2286: \command{cartesian\_product} didn't convert well.
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 ; follow-up: ↓ 10 Changed 9 years ago by
Everything is fixed except I think there are still two images missing.
Partial orders on a set of 8 elements, up to isomorphism (search for "partial orders on a set").
There is missing sage output .. image:: ../../media/combinat/graphs-5.png (search for "Here are those with at most")
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 9 years ago by
Good morning Hugh!
Replying to hthomas:
Everything is fixed except I think there are still two images missing.
Thanks!
Partial orders on a set of 8 elements, up to isomorphism (search for "partial orders on a set").
There is missing sage output .. image:: ../../media/combinat/graphs-5.png (search for "Here are those with at most")
I just pushed a reviewer patch on the queue doing that and a couple other minor improvements. If you are happy we my changes, I guess we can fold everything together, and declare it as done.
I am heading for the CRM now.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:11 Changed 9 years ago by
Ok, we are just waiting for some proofreading notes a colleague here, and it's good to go!
comment:12 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from Hugh Thomas, Nicolas M. Thiéry to Hugh Thomas, Nicolas M. Thiéry, Timothy Walsh
comment:13 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Thanks Timothy, your proofreading has been super useful!
After a last round of checking, here is the final patch, all good to go.
Hugh: it's been a pleasure collaborating with you on this one :-)
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:14 follow-up: ↓ 15 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
There are a few doctest failures:
********************************************************************** File "/padic/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.1.beta1/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/tutorial.py", line 664: sage: S.cardinality() # long time Expected: 2003529930406846464979072351560255750447825475569751419265016973 ...736L Got: 20035299304068464649790[didn't copy]905719156736 ********************************************************************** File "/padic/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.1.beta1/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/tutorial.py", line 675: sage: S.unrank(237102123) # long time Expected: {{{2}, {3}, {1, 2, 3, 4}, {1, 2}, {1, 4}, {}, {2, 3, 4}, {1, 2, 4}, {3, 4}, {4}, {2, 3}, {1, 2, 3}}, {{2}, {3}, {1, 2, 3, 4}, {1, 2}, {1, 4}, {2, 3, 4}, {3, 4}, {1, 3, 4}, {1}, {1, 3}, {1, 2, 3}}} Got: {{{3}, {1, 2, 3, 4}, {1, 2}, {1, 4}, {}, {2, 3, 4}, {1, 2, 4}, {3, 4}, {4}, {2, 3}, {1, 2, 3}, {2}}, {{3}, {1, 2, 3, 4}, {1, 2}, {1, 4 }, {2, 3, 4}, {3, 4}, {1, 3, 4}, {1}, {1, 3}, {1, 2, 3}, {2}}} ********************************************************************** File "/padic/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.1.beta1/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/tutorial.py", line 1169: sage: sum( x^len(s) for s in Subsets(8) ) Expected: x^8 + 8*x^7 + 28*x^6 + 56*x^5 + 70*x^4 + 56*x^3 + 28*x^2 + 8*x + 1 Got: 976273994417299685848067930754598608313151518561000000000000000000000000 ********************************************************************** File "/padic/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.1.beta1/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/tutorial.py", line 1174: sage: sum( x^p.length() for p in Permutations(3) ) Expected: x^3 + 2*x^2 + 2*x + 1 Got: 991035918113904045988003000 ********************************************************************** File "/padic/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.1.beta1/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/tutorial.py", line 1179: sage: factor(sum( x^p.length() for p in Permutations(3) )) Expected: (x + 1)*(x^2 + x + 1) Got: 2^3 * 5^3 * 7^2 * 20347 * 80929 * 12282556080169 **********************************************************************
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 14 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
Replying to jdemeyer:
There are a few doctest failures:
Ah shoot, sorry, long tests of course. Fixed in the attached patch.
Thanks,
Nicolas
comment:16 follow-up: ↓ 17 Changed 9 years ago by
I'm curious about why this is part of the reference manual, not the thematic tutorials.
comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 16 ; follow-up: ↓ 18 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to move to devel/sage/doc
Replying to jhpalmieri:
I'm curious about why this is part of the reference manual, not the thematic tutorials.
Good point, this should be addressed.
comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 17 ; follow-up: ↓ 19 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Replying to jdemeyer:
Replying to jhpalmieri:
I'm curious about why this is part of the reference manual, not the thematic tutorials.
We have discussed this quite some with the Sage-Combinat people. Here is the rationale for putting a thematic tutorial in the Sage sources when there is a natural spot for it ("transversal" tutorials should definitely go in the thematic tutorial directory):
- It's available from
sage: sage.combinat.tutorial?
which I find a very desirable feature.
- It keeps it close to the related sources. Among the advantages are:
- a curious reader browsing the sources will find it
- running
sage -t
on sage.combinat will run the tests there - grepping or query/replacing through sage/combinat will find it
- It's possible to refer to it from the reference manual (ok, that's a bad argument: linking the thematic tutorials from the reference manual ought to be possible, but this is another story).
Note that we already have a sage.rings.padics.tutorial
.
Of course, this tutorial should be linked from the thematic tutorial index. The reason I did not do it right away is that there is a patch with other tutorials coming shortly which includes a bit of reorganization of the that index, and I wanted to avoid trivial conflicts.
What do you think?
I am putting this back to needs review, and let you put it back to positive review.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 18 ; follow-ups: ↓ 20 ↓ 21 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to nthiery:
Replying to jdemeyer:
Replying to jhpalmieri:
I'm curious about why this is part of the reference manual, not the thematic tutorials.
- It's available from
sage: sage.combinat.tutorial?
which I find a very desirable feature.
If it were in thematic tutorials, something like this still ought to be doable (say, using sage.combinat.tutorial()
instead), using modifications of the commands from sagedoc.py that allow tutorial()
to open the tutorial.
Anyway, my original question was, as I said, a matter of curiosity, not a criticism. I don't mind setting this back to "positive review", although it would be good (on another ticket – please cc me if you open one) to tidy up the documentation in the ways you seem to suggest in your comment. And the code in sagedoc.py could be modified to allow easy opening of the various thematic tutorials.
Jeroen: any objections?
comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 19 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi John,
Replying to jhpalmieri:
If it were in thematic tutorials, something like this still ought to be doable (say, using
sage.combinat.tutorial()
instead), using modifications of the commands from sagedoc.py that allowtutorial()
to open the tutorial.
Yeah, but it's really not as good: you need to teach people yet another way to access documentation. The user should just need to know about '?'.
Anyway, my original question was, as I said, a matter of curiosity, not a criticism.
I definitely was a good question. And I wanted to take the time to answer since others are likely to ask it as well :-)
I don't mind setting this back to "positive review", although it would be good (on another ticket – please cc me if you open one) to tidy up the documentation in the ways you seem to suggest in your comment.
Thanks for your interest. I hope to get to this done soon: we want this to be in Sage for the Sage Days in July! Now, I'll be traveling around the next couple weeks, so don't hold too much your breath.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:21 in reply to: ↑ 19 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:22 Changed 9 years ago by
- Work issues move to devel/sage/doc deleted
comment:23 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.1.beta4
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:24 Changed 9 years ago by
Yippee!
Thanks everyone!
comment:25 follow-up: ↓ 28 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in sage-5.1.beta4 deleted
- Resolution fixed deleted
- Status changed from closed to new
This takes a really long time to --long doctest (180 seconds on sage.math).
Can you either simplify some doctests or split up this file?
comment:26 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:27 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 25 ; follow-up: ↓ 29 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
This takes a really long time to --long doctest (180 seconds on sage.math).
Can you either simplify some doctests or split up this file?
In the upcoming updated patch, I have fixed the tutorial to not test at all one of the longest tests (it was marked random anyway), and to avoid a recomputation in another long test. I used the occasion to record the time needed for the other long tests. On my machine running the tests with -long goes from 65s down to 35s. I guess that should do the job.
Jeroen: since the change is essentially trivial and is only about doctests (see diff below), do you mind reviewing it, just to make the merge cycle faster?
Thanks!
Nicolas
sage/combinat/tutorial.py
diff --git a/sage/combinat/tutorial.py b/sage/combinat/tutorial.py
a b calculate its cardinality (`2^{2^{2^4}}` 661 661 662 662 sage: E = Set([1,2,3,4]) 663 663 sage: S = Subsets(Subsets(Subsets(E))) 664 sage: S.cardinality() # long time664 sage: n = S.cardinality(); n # long time (10s, 2012) 665 665 2003529930406846464979072351560255750447825475569751419265016973... 666 666 667 667 which is roughly `2\cdot 10^{19728}`:: 668 668 669 sage: S.cardinality().ndigits()# long time669 sage: n.ndigits() # long time 670 670 19729 671 671 672 672 or ask for its `237102124`-th element:: 673 673 674 sage: S.unrank(237102123) # long time # random674 sage: S.unrank(237102123) # not tested (20s, 2012) 675 675 {{{2}, {3}, {1, 2, 3, 4}, {1, 2}, {1, 4}, {}, {2, 3, 4}, 676 676 {1, 2, 4}, {3, 4}, {4}, {2, 3}, {1, 2, 3}}, {{2}, {3}, 677 677 {1, 2, 3, 4}, {1, 2}, {1, 4}, {2, 3, 4}, {3, 4}, … … Alternatively, we could construct an int 1143 1143 :: 1144 1144 1145 1145 sage: cubes = [t**3 for t in range(-999,1000)] 1146 sage: exists([(x,y) for x in cubes for y in cubes], # long time 1146 sage: exists([(x,y) for x in cubes for y in cubes], # long time (3s, 2012) 1147 1147 ... lambda (x,y): x+y == 218) 1148 1148 (True, (-125, 343)) 1149 sage: exists(((x,y) for x in cubes for y in cubes), # long time 1149 sage: exists(((x,y) for x in cubes for y in cubes), # long time (2s, 2012) 1150 1150 ... lambda (x,y): x+y == 218) 1151 1151 (True, (-125, 343)) 1152 1152
Changed 9 years ago by
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 28 Changed 9 years ago by
Jeroen: since the change is essentially trivial and is only about doctests (see diff below), do you mind reviewing it, just to make the merge cycle faster?
Hugh: feel free to beat Jeroen :-)
I really would like to see this in 5.1, for the upcoming Sage Days 40.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:30 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:31 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
For my laptop, it goes from 169 s to 102 s. I have set it back to positive review, subject to Jeroen's opinion about whether this speedup is sufficient.
cheers,
Hugh
comment:32 Changed 9 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.1 to sage-5.2
Sorry, sage-5.1 is done.
comment:33 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.2.beta1
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:34 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in sage-5.2.beta1 deleted
- Resolution fixed deleted
- Status changed from closed to new
At http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6538#comment:8, there is a claim that a test added by this ticket is incorrect.
comment:35 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:36 follow-up: ↓ 37 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:37 in reply to: ↑ 36 Changed 9 years ago by
Thanks Jeroen!
comment:38 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.2.rc0
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
The conversion to ReST should be finished. The two remaining things that remain to do: