#14019 closed defect (fixed)
equality is broken for Posets
Reported by:  ncohen  Owned by:  sagecombinat 

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage6.4 
Component:  combinatorics  Keywords:  posets 
Cc:  hivert, nthiery, nborie, VivianePons, chapoton, aschilling, stumpc5, jmantysalo  Merged in:  
Authors:  Travis Scrimshaw, Anne Schilling  Reviewers:  Travis Scrimshaw, Anne Schilling, John Palmieri, Nathann Cohen, Nicolas M. Thiéry 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  23de9f5 (Commits, GitHub, GitLab)  Commit:  
Dependencies:  #17059, #16933  Stopgaps:  #14185 
Description (last modified by )
Plain and simple :
sage: d = DiGraph({2:[1],3:[1]}) sage: p1 = Poset(d) sage: p2 = p1.relabel({1:1,2:3,3:2}) sage: p1.hasse_diagram() == p2.hasse_diagram() True sage: p1 == p2 False
This can be fixed by saying that two posets are equal if their hasse diagrams are equal, as it should have been since the beginning.
This will probably make poset equality much slower. On the bright side it will work correctly.
Of course this patch could have been almost trivial, but there is in the FinitePoset? class a "key" argument, whose purpose is to make two posets different if they have different keys. So this patch checks that too.
And the next time that somebody will need to store pairs "(a poset, a key)", the best will be to store pairs "(a poset, a key)". And not "A poset with a key included inside, which is useful just for my own code" as one could easily believe.
Oh. And the same with linear orderings, of course.
Nathann
Attachments (1)
Change History (110)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
fixed by removing the useless keyword (it is useless, as it cannot be used and hence has never been). Casting the HasseDiagram
to a digraph first is useless copy, as relabeling with inplace = False
already makes a copy.
And also because for some reason, up to now, a call to .hasse_diagram()
returned a DiGraph
and not a HasseDiagram
object.
Nathann
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh.....
def __eq__(self, other): return self.hasse_diagram() == other.hasse_diagram()
Result :
... File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python/sitepackages/sage/combinat/posets/posets.py", line 826, in __eq__ return ((self.hasse_diagram() == other.hasse_diagram()) and File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python/sitepackages/sage/graphs/generic_graph.py", line 432, in __eq__ if self.vertices() != other.vertices(): File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python/sitepackages/sage/combinat/posets/elements.py", line 116, in __eq__ return have_same_parent(self, other) \ File "sage_object.pyx", line 700, in sage.structure.sage_object.have_same_parent (sage/structure/sage_object.c:8386) File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python/sitepackages/sage/combinat/posets/posets.py", line 826, in __eq__ return ((self.hasse_diagram() == other.hasse_diagram()) and ... RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded
Categories strike again.
Nathann
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by
return ((DiGraph.__eq__(self.hasse_diagram(), other.hasse_diagram()))
Same result.
comment:6 followup: ↓ 7 Changed 10 years ago by
 Cc chapoton aschilling added
 Status changed from new to needs_info
Ok guys, you did it, I have no way to write a new __eq__
method in Poset
which is not "self is other" without getting an infinite loop.
If I want to actually compare the data of the posets (hasse diagram, vertices), then comparing the data will raise a call to compare their parents, and I'm gone for another loop.
Now what ?
Nathann
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 ; followup: ↓ 9 Changed 10 years ago by
We discussed this at the Sage Days last week (unfortunately you were not there). The best way might be to have an option in Posets which would allow to create posets with and without an attached linear extension. Your use case would be in the new default case of no linear extension attached.
Best,
Anne
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by
 Cc stumpc5 added
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 7 ; followup: ↓ 12 Changed 10 years ago by
We discussed this at the Sage Days last week (unfortunately you were not there).
I'm pretty sure that I was, but I admittedly have a very poor memory.
The best way might be to have an option in Posets which would allow to create posets with and without an attached linear extension.
And the one without fancy stuff would be the default Poset.
Your use case would be in the new default case of no linear extension attached.
My use case is the definition of what a Poset is. In any book. Also, do we overlook the fact that this is a conceptual problem of categories, and equalities, an parents, and all that stuff ?
Nathann
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by
Quotes from posets.py
# We need to relabel the digraph since range(self._n) must be a linear # extension. Too bad we need to compute this again. TODO: Fix this.
Nathann
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; followup: ↓ 13 Changed 10 years ago by
Hi Nathann,
Replying to ncohen:
We discussed this at the Sage Days last week (unfortunately you were not there).
I'm pretty sure that I was, but I admittedly have a very poor memory.
The discussion continued later.
Your use case would be in the new default case of no linear extension attached.
My use case is the definition of what a Poset is. In any book.
Obviously. We all agree that this is the rationale for the new default value.
Also, do we overlook the fact that this is a conceptual problem of categories, and equalities, an parents, and all that stuff ?
This has nothing to do with categories. This is a consequence of the choice of having unique representation for posets. The constructor should do the right thing and then equality be simply tested by "is".
Now if you would not mind stopping spreading FUD on unrelated things for no reason except that you happen to not need them yourself, «ça nous ferait des vacances».
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 ; followup: ↓ 14 Changed 10 years ago by
Obviously. We all agree that this is the rationale for the new default value.
Just to make sure everybody accepts that code will be broken.
This has nothing to do with categories. This is a consequence of the choice of having unique representation for posets. The constructor should do the right thing and then equality be simply tested by "is".
Nice. Now, if I have a class that I define myself which contains elements which belong to the category framework : does it mean that this class has to be UniqueRepresentation
? That seems to be the source of my problem above.
Now if you would not mind stopping spreading FUD on unrelated things for no reason except that you happen to not need them yourself, «ça nous ferait des vacances».
Fix the bugs you introduce and we have a deal. How do I break out of this infinite loop ?
Nathann
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to ncohen:
Obviously. We all agree that this is the rationale for the new default value.
Just to make sure everybody accepts that code will be broken.
Please reread. The new default is what we both agree on and is correct.
Nice. Now, if I have a class that I define myself which contains elements which belong to the category framework : does it mean that this class has to be
UniqueRepresentation
?
No. Some parents don't have unique representation.
Fix the bugs you introduce and we have a deal.
I did not introduce this bug. And anyway it's Chet's fault.
How do I break out of this infinite loop ?
I know it's frustrating when one can't have an influence to improve the world. But in the case at hand the only step you can take is to stop wasting our time repeating the same things over and over.
comment:15 Changed 10 years ago by
Helloooooooooooooo !!!
Okayyyyyyyyyy, I just had a nice evening with Florent which had begun with a conversation about this patch, and he said that he'd have a patch for this one month from now.
This being said, I still have no answer for a problem with categories : you say that some parents do not have a unique representation, but here is the reason behind the infinite loop I got today :
1) My Poset parent implements __eq__
by first comparing the hasse diagrams, which leads to check that the elements of the digraph are equal.
2) In order to know whether the elements are equal, the category mechanism makes them check that they have the same parents
3) I check that the parents are equal again, and loop ...
That's why I asked whether Parents need to be UniqueRepresentation. Because if they aren't, they sure cannot compare their elements !
Nathann
comment:16 followup: ↓ 18 Changed 10 years ago by
Generally, ==
should mean identical and not just isomorphic. Up to automorphism there is only one set of a given size. But surely we don't want all sets of fixed size to compare equal, right?
Any two objects that satisfy ==
may be substituted for each other in cached method calls.
If you want "isomorphic with possibly nonunique isomorphism" then just implement a is_isomorphic()
method.
comment:17 Changed 10 years ago by
There's nothing related to isomorphism in what I said. The same way that you expect that int(1) == Integer(1) is True, I would like that two posets that represent the very same partially ordered set be equal. This is totally linear, and consists in checking that i<j in one poset if and only if i<j in the other one. That's not an isomorphism, there is no relabeling involved.
This being said, I would like to have an answer to my question above. Not being able to define an __eq__
function as you see fit because of the parent stuff looks to me like a problem.
Nathann
comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 16 Changed 10 years ago by
But surely we don't want all sets of fixed size to compare equal, right?
And surely we don't want all Sage objects to be UniqueRepresentation?.
Nathann
comment:19 Changed 10 years ago by
(Answer from Nicolas Thiery, because trac is in a bad mood)
Replying to ncohen:
Okayyyyyyyyyy, I just had a nice evening with Florent which had begun with a conversation about this patch, and he said that he'd have a patch for this one month from now.
Excellent :)
This being said, I still have no answer for a problem with categories : you say that some parents do not have a unique representation, but here is the reason behind the infinite loop I got today :
1) My Poset parent implements
__eq__
by first comparing the hasse diagrams, which leads to check that the elements of the digraph are equal. 2) In order to know whether the elements are equal, the category mechanism makes them check that they have the same parents 3) I check that the parents are equal again, and loop ...That's why I asked whether Parents need to be UniqueRepresentation?. Because if they aren't, they sure cannot compare their elements !
Ok, I get your point now.
That's a situation we never met before; parents not often compare themselves by comparing (some of) their elements. When this is the case, this probably means that those elements were part of the definition of the parent, and thus constructed from some data that preexisted the parent.
To break the loop, one could thus compare that data. In the case at hand, that would amount to compare the digraph that was use as input to the Poset constructor.
Even if this occurred from time to time, I guess I would not see this as a recurrent problem of elements/parent, but of data structures with loops in general.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:20 Changed 10 years ago by
What is the expected output of the following:
sage: d = DiGraph({2:[1],3:[1]}) sage: p1 = Poset(d) sage: p2 = p1.relabel({1:1,2:3,3:2}) sage: p1[0] 3 sage: p2[0] 2 sage: @cached_function ....: def first_element(poset): ....: return poset[0] ....: sage: first_element(p1) 3 sage: first_element(p2) ???
comment:21 Changed 9 years ago by
 Stopgaps set to #14185
comment:22 Changed 9 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage5.11 to sage5.12
comment:23 Changed 9 years ago by
 Branch set to u/andrew.mathas/ticket/14019
 Created changed from 01/26/13 15:28:37 to 01/26/13 15:28:37
 Modified changed from 08/13/13 15:35:53 to 08/13/13 15:35:53
comment:24 Changed 9 years ago by
 Commit set to a1a85ff09dcc34a56b9362a9d4461d907296718e
Hi Nathann,
I moved your patch over to git and I found a hack which stops the infinite loop: it turns out that posets have an attribute _hasse_diagram
and checking this seems to be better for some (unknown) reason. A few of the doctests still fail:
sage t posets.py ********************************************************************** File "posets.py", line 456, in sage.combinat.posets.posets.Poset Failed example: P1 == P2 Expected: False Got: True ********************************************************************** File "posets.py", line 838, in sage.combinat.posets.posets.FinitePoset.__eq__ Failed example: p3 == p1 Expected: False Got: True ********************************************************************** File "posets.py", line 842, in sage.combinat.posets.posets.FinitePoset.__eq__ Failed example: p3 == p5 Expected: False Got: True ********************************************************************** File "posets.py", line 1133, in sage.combinat.posets.posets.FinitePoset.hasse_diagram Failed example: Q.hasse_diagram() Expected: Hasse diagram of a poset containing 6 elements Got: Digraph on 6 vertices **********************************************************************
I guess that the failing equality tests are bad, but I am happy that the infinite loop is gone.
Florent, Nicolas: it would be good if you could take some time to look at this too as this has been sitting around unloved for quite awhile.
Andrew
New commits:
a1a85ff  Importing Nathann's patch 
8c2aeff  trac #15479: Finite Words should be proud of their finiteness 
comment:25 Changed 9 years ago by
Hmm, not sure why the commit for #15479 is also on this ticket. Probably I screwed up and didn't branch off the master:(
comment:26 Changed 9 years ago by
Hmmmmmm... Must be because my original patch fixed several things, and two of these fixes are not compatible with each other : I also made .hasse_diagram()
return a HasseDiagram
object.
In the patch you imported with git, this modification is not made anymore. So you compare DiGraph
objects, and not HasseDiagram
objects. Perhaps it still works if you compare the results of .hasse_diagram()
instead of ._hasse_diagram
directly.
Arggggggg ! No, I think I understood ! I think that it is incorrect to compare the ._hasse_diagram
digraphs, because they are always labelled with integers, so when you do that you do not compare the vertice' labels :
sage: list(posets.IntegerCompositions(3)) [[3], [1, 2], [2, 1], [1, 1, 1]] sage: list(posets.IntegerCompositions(3).hasse_diagram()) [[3], [1, 2], [1, 1, 1], [2, 1]] sage: list(posets.IntegerCompositions(3)._hasse_diagram) [0, 1, 2, 3]
And of course as you compare digraphs defined on integers there is no problem, for they don't have parents. But it may say that two posets are equal even if they are defined on disjoint sets of elements.
Nathann
comment:27 Changed 9 years ago by
 Commit changed from a1a85ff09dcc34a56b9362a9d4461d907296718e to d10a6efa75561632cdc76b2c98c5eca4312372ec
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
d10a6ef  Importing Nathann's patch 
comment:28 Changed 9 years ago by
I have just undone my mistaken branching off #15479
comment:29 Changed 9 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.1 to sage6.2
comment:30 Changed 8 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.2 to sage6.3
comment:31 Changed 8 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.3 to sage6.4
comment:32 Changed 8 years ago by
 Cc jmantysalo added
Hello,
20 months ago, I thought that this problem would be fixed in a month. Yesterday Jori created ticket #17051 which is a bug report, apparently linked with what this ticket was meant to address.
Today is saturday. Unless somebody has a different way to solve the problem and is meaning to solve it during the week, I will create a ticket here that makes .relabel()
return a Poset.
You cannot defend that Posets are both UniqueRepresentation
and mutable. So .relabel()
cannot change self. There will be no deprecation, for it is a bugfix.
Nathann
comment:33 followup: ↓ 34 Changed 8 years ago by
relabel()
does return a new poset. The issue is a little more subtle in regards to the ordering on the set of elements of the poset:
sage: list(p1) [3, 2, 1] sage: list(p2) [2, 3, 1]
because
sage: p1._elements (3, 2, 1) sage: p2._elements (2, 3, 1)
That is why they don't compare as equal (as it is part of the construction data). The simplist change (FTR, I don't consider this to be a bug, but instead a lack of documentation) would be to make the Hasse diagram the only part of the construction info, however this would mean we'd have to relabel the Hasse diagram at construction time rather than when calling hasse_diagram()
. This also has the drawback of not being able to use the same digraph for all relabelings of a poset, which is probably used by the linear extensions and creates a much larger memory usage (and data duplication).
Hopefully before you have gotten angry, I think better standardization could be used here too.
I'm also not quite sure #17051 is because of this behavior, but I haven't really looked into it.
comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 33 ; followups: ↓ 35 ↓ 36 Changed 8 years ago by
Yo !
relabel()
does return a new poset.
Oh, True, True, I had forgotten what exactly the problem was. Two years ago, after all :D
Cool, then the interface will not even change.
The simplist change would be to make the Hasse diagram the only part of the construction info, however this would mean we'd have to relabel the Hasse diagram at construction time rather than when calling
hasse_diagram()
.
Indeed.I will do just that.
This also has the drawback of not being able to use the same digraph for all relabelings of a poset, which is probably used by the linear extensions and creates a much larger memory usage (and data duplication).
Hopefully before you have gotten angry, I think better standardization could be used here too.
I was angry two years ago, because I was told that the problem would be fixed, and it was not. Jori had been doing a lot of work to fix/improve the poset class in the last two days, and I just don't want to tell him that this bug will stay because nobody is willing to make a move.
I will write the branch that rewrites .relabel properly, and that will be all.
Nathann
comment:35 in reply to: ↑ 34 Changed 8 years ago by
Hopefully before you have gotten angry, I think better standardization could be used here too.
Can you implement your idea this week ? If you can't I will implement the simple idea I understand (just give the relabelled Hasse Diagram) to fix the bug. If you can, tell me and so that I do not implement this for nothing.
Thanks,
Nathann
comment:36 in reply to: ↑ 34 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to ncohen:
Jori had been doing a lot of work to fix/improve the poset class in the last two days, and I just don't want to tell him that this bug will stay because nobody is willing to make a move.
This is not a blocker issue for me. I was just making some test set, but I can do it by other ways.
comment:37 Changed 8 years ago by
Okay, I am wasting my weekend on this bug that had been left to rot for 20 months again, and here is where I am:
In the __init__
of FinitePoset you have a hasse diagram on 0,...,n1
and a list of labels for the n points. Those are used as the key for the equality inherited from UniqueRepresentation
.
Of course, if you apply a graph isomorphism to the list of labels it still represents the very same poset. But the key is different, so equality answers 'no'.
Guys this bug is hard to fix because there is a LOT of code that uses these functions, and there are two layers of pretreatment (Poset
and FinitePoset.__classcall__
). I would appreciate it if somebody felt responsible of that and fixed it.
Nathann
P.S.: I created #17059 that fixes some other stupid bug.
comment:38 followup: ↓ 39 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:39 in reply to: ↑ 38 Changed 8 years ago by
Hi Nathann,
To be honest, I cannot even reproduce the bug that you reported
sage: d = DiGraph({2:[1],3:[1]}) sage: sage: p1 = Poset(d) sage: sage: p2 = p1.relabel({1:1,2:3,3:2}) /Applications/sage/src/bin/sageipython:1: ******************************************************************************** Relabelling posets is known to break equality between posets (P == Q) This issue is being tracked at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14019. ******************************************************************************** sage: sage: p1.hasse_diagram() == p2.hasse_diagram() True sage: p1 == p2 True
Is it possible that this was already fixed with #17059? I am running sage6.4.beta4.
Anne
comment:40 followup: ↓ 41 Changed 8 years ago by
No Anne, I am not complaining about a bug that I fixed myself last week.
I found #17059 while working on it, and #17059 is only about a bad 'category' argument.
In particular, I can still reproduce it on my computer.
This being said, the code has absolutely no reason to be machinedependent in its current state. Can you check this again and give us the output of p1._list and p2._list ? The relabel function, which you wrote yourself in #12536, makes sure that the ._list
flag is modified, which breaks equality. This is not machinedependent, so I do not understand why it may work on your computer.
Nathann
comment:41 in reply to: ↑ 40 Changed 8 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/andrew.mathas/ticket/14019 to public/combinat/poset/fix_equality14019
 Commit changed from d10a6efa75561632cdc76b2c98c5eca4312372ec to b1eefd78cd65736b44153761b929de1c4387cb70
 Keywords posets added
 Reviewers set to Travis Scrimshaw, Anne Schilling
 Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
The current branch fixes the bug. The rationale is to allow posets to not have a specified linear extension. This is achieved by changing the input behavior of FinitePoset
. If elements
is specified, this is used for the underlying linear extension. If elements
is None, then the default linear extension is now computed in the __init__
, so that posets where linear extensions are not specified now compare equal.
Travis and Anne
Last 10 new commits:
691807b  Fixed issues with relabeling and elements. Fixed some doctests.

d5c570c  Some more fixes.

a1eca30  reinstated linear_extension

95f735b  getting the interface right!

01dc92d  needed one more relabelling for correct linear extensions

f1511c0  Fixing bugs in relabeling by not doing it automatically in __classcall__.

6f86a9a  fixed some docs

c7e7107  Fixed last issues. All doctests pass.

ed7f091  more doc test fixes

b1eefd7  Some more documentation as reference.

comment:42 Changed 8 years ago by
 Dependencies set to #17059
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
FTR, we also did some minor cleanup of the file.
comment:43 followup: ↓ 49 Changed 8 years ago by
Positive review ? On my computer this code breaks a *LOT* of doctests in the combinat folder.
Nathann
comment:44 Changed 8 years ago by
Also, I do not understand what you do in the .dual()
function. You seem to define a elements
variable that you do not use. As a result the dual of a Poset with a linear extension becomes a poset without linear extension.
Would it also be possible to change the __repr__
function so that is says explicitly that the poset is a poset with a linear extension
? The two posets behave as if they were of different type (they can never be equal), and if such a poset is returned by a function it may surprise the user that the poset is never equal to a poset he built himself.
Nathann
comment:45 followup: ↓ 50 Changed 8 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Merge conflict, too
comment:46 Changed 8 years ago by
Merge conflict ? Oh, yes probably with all the Poset tickets Jori wrote. Their code is based on the latest beta though.
Nathann
comment:47 followup: ↓ 54 Changed 8 years ago by
I can't even get to the point of running doctests: if I run make
, then docbuilding fails with
[modmisc ] loading pickled environment... not yet created [modmisc ] building [inventory]: targets for 16 source files that are out of date [modmisc ] updating environment: 16 added, 0 changed, 0 removed [modmisc ] reading sources... [ 6%] index [modmisc ] reading sources... [ 12%] sage/modular/buzzard Error building the documentation. Note: incremental documentation builds sometimes cause spurious error messages. To be certain that these are real errors, run "make docclean" first and try again. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/Users/palmieri/Desktop/Sage_stuff/git/sage/src/doc/common/builder.py", line 1491, in <module> getattr(get_builder(name), type)() File "/Users/palmieri/Desktop/Sage_stuff/git/sage/src/doc/common/builder.py", line 292, in _wrapper getattr(get_builder(document), 'inventory')(*args, **kwds) File "/Users/palmieri/Desktop/Sage_stuff/git/sage/src/doc/common/builder.py", line 503, in _wrapper x.get(99999) File "/Users/palmieri/Desktop/Sage_stuff/git/sage/local/lib/python/multiprocessing/pool.py", line 558, in get raise self._value NotImplementedError: Non injective relabeling make: *** [dochtml] Error 1
comment:48 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from b1eefd78cd65736b44153761b929de1c4387cb70 to e575742951572b4b383abeae1e21e934b9e1683f
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
e575742  fixed failing doc tests

comment:49 in reply to: ↑ 43 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to ncohen:
Positive review ? On my computer this code breaks a *LOT* of doctests in the combinat folder.
They were all trivial failures and are fixed now!
Also, I do not understand what you do in the .dual() function. You seem to define a >elements variable that you do not use. As a result the dual of a Poset with a linear >extension becomes a poset without linear extension.
Fixed.
Would it also be possible to change the repr function so that is says explicitly that the poset is a poset with a linear extension ? The two posets behave as if they were of different type (they can never be equal), and if such a poset is returned by a function it may surprise the user that the poset is never equal to a poset he built himself.
If this is only for HIM, I am sure this is now in your ability range to fix it, if it is important to you!
Anne
comment:50 in reply to: ↑ 45 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:51 followup: ↓ 53 Changed 8 years ago by
I get lots of doctest failures with this. See http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/palmieri/misc/ptest14019OSX.log. (This is on an OS X machine, but I see the same failures on sage.math.)
comment:52 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from e575742951572b4b383abeae1e21e934b9e1683f to 68c2902122a52cc16a13831b80d7a52c4e98fe86
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
68c2902  fixed more spots where FinitePoset was used directly

comment:53 in reply to: ↑ 51 ; followup: ↓ 55 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to jhpalmieri:
I get lots of doctest failures with this. See http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/palmieri/misc/ptest14019OSX.log. (This is on an OS X machine, but I see the same failures on sage.math.)
Oopsey daisey, thanks for reporting. We forgot a couple of places in the sage library, where FinitePoset? was used directly. Should be fixed now!
comment:54 in reply to: ↑ 47 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to jhpalmieri:
I can't even get to the point of running doctests: if I run
make
, then docbuilding fails with[modmisc ] loading pickled environment... not yet created [modmisc ] building [inventory]: targets for 16 source files that are out of date [modmisc ] updating environment: 16 added, 0 changed, 0 removed [modmisc ] reading sources... [ 6%] index [modmisc ] reading sources... [ 12%] sage/modular/buzzard Error building the documentation. Note: incremental documentation builds sometimes cause spurious error messages. To be certain that these are real errors, run "make docclean" first and try again. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/Users/palmieri/Desktop/Sage_stuff/git/sage/src/doc/common/builder.py", line 1491, in <module> getattr(get_builder(name), type)() File "/Users/palmieri/Desktop/Sage_stuff/git/sage/src/doc/common/builder.py", line 292, in _wrapper getattr(get_builder(document), 'inventory')(*args, **kwds) File "/Users/palmieri/Desktop/Sage_stuff/git/sage/src/doc/common/builder.py", line 503, in _wrapper x.get(99999) File "/Users/palmieri/Desktop/Sage_stuff/git/sage/local/lib/python/multiprocessing/pool.py", line 558, in get raise self._value NotImplementedError: Non injective relabeling make: *** [dochtml] Error 1
I am not sure why/how this would be caused by this branch.
Anne
comment:55 in reply to: ↑ 53 ; followup: ↓ 56 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to aschilling:
Oopsey daisey, thanks for reporting. We forgot a couple of places in the sage library, where FinitePoset? was used directly. Should be fixed now!
Unfortunately not:
 sage t src/sage/combinat/root_system/root_lattice_realizations.py # 2 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/abstract_ring.py # 377 doctests failed sage t src/sage/combinat/root_system/root_system.py # 1 doctest failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/graded_ring_element.py # 386 doctests failed sage t src/sage/homology/cell_complex.py # 1 doctest failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/abstract_space.py # 306 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/space.py # 184 doctests failed sage t src/sage/categories/finite_posets.py # 4 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/hecke_triangle_groups.py # 107 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/series_constructor.py # 144 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/functors.py # 121 doctests failed sage t src/doc/en/reference/coercion/index.rst # 1 doctest failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/analytic_type.py # 113 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/graded_ring.py # 65 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/readme.py # 94 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/subspace.py # 85 doctests failed sage t src/sage/misc/c3_controlled.pyx # 9 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/element.py # 32 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/constructor.py # 30 doctests failed 
Re docbuilding:
I am not sure why/how this would be caused by this branch.
It definitely was, but it was fixed by commit e575472.
comment:56 in reply to: ↑ 55 ; followup: ↓ 57 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to jhpalmieri:
Replying to aschilling:
Oopsey daisey, thanks for reporting. We forgot a couple of places in the sage library, where FinitePoset? was used directly. Should be fixed now!
Unfortunately not:
 sage t src/sage/combinat/root_system/root_lattice_realizations.py # 2 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/abstract_ring.py # 377 doctests failed sage t src/sage/combinat/root_system/root_system.py # 1 doctest failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/graded_ring_element.py # 386 doctests failed sage t src/sage/homology/cell_complex.py # 1 doctest failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/abstract_space.py # 306 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/space.py # 184 doctests failed sage t src/sage/categories/finite_posets.py # 4 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/hecke_triangle_groups.py # 107 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/series_constructor.py # 144 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/functors.py # 121 doctests failed sage t src/doc/en/reference/coercion/index.rst # 1 doctest failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/analytic_type.py # 113 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/graded_ring.py # 65 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/readme.py # 94 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/subspace.py # 85 doctests failed sage t src/sage/misc/c3_controlled.pyx # 9 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/element.py # 32 doctests failed sage t src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/constructor.py # 30 doctests failed 
Strange, I do not get these errors:
root_system anne$ sage t *.py too few successful tests, not using stored timings Running doctests with ID 201410102240449fc5ba66. Doctesting 44 files. sage t __init__.py [0 tests, 0.00 s] sage t all.py [0 tests, 0.00 s] sage t ambient_space.py [69 tests, 10.05 s] sage t associahedron.py [28 tests, 2.83 s] sage t branching_rules.py [252 tests, 10.29 s] sage t cartan_matrix.py [105 tests, 1.96 s] sage t cartan_type.py [408 tests, 3.53 s] sage t coxeter_group.py [28 tests, 4.64 s] sage t coxeter_matrix.py [10 tests, 0.15 s] sage t dynkin_diagram.py [104 tests, 0.84 s] sage t hecke_algebra_representation.py [286 tests, 5.06 s] sage t non_symmetric_macdonald_polynomials.py [533 tests, 13.02 s] sage t pieri_factors.py [225 tests, 13.11 s] sage t plot.py [256 tests, 28.88 s] sage t root_lattice_realization_algebras.py [309 tests, 4.04 s] sage t root_lattice_realizations.py [561 tests, 15.06 s] sage t root_space.py [77 tests, 4.89 s] sage t root_system.py [131 tests, 3.85 s] sage t type_A.py [48 tests, 0.27 s] sage t type_A_affine.py [31 tests, 0.04 s] sage t type_B.py [41 tests, 0.20 s] sage t type_BC_affine.py [44 tests, 0.05 s] sage t type_B_affine.py [27 tests, 0.04 s] sage t type_C.py [42 tests, 0.26 s] sage t type_C_affine.py [23 tests, 0.04 s] sage t type_D.py [41 tests, 0.20 s] sage t type_D_affine.py [25 tests, 0.04 s] sage t type_E.py [55 tests, 0.34 s] sage t type_E_affine.py [26 tests, 0.03 s] sage t type_F.py [39 tests, 0.31 s] sage t type_F_affine.py [19 tests, 0.03 s] sage t type_G.py [35 tests, 0.26 s] sage t type_G_affine.py [19 tests, 0.03 s] sage t type_H.py [20 tests, 0.15 s] sage t type_I.py [19 tests, 0.14 s] sage t type_affine.py [80 tests, 8.43 s] sage t type_dual.py [122 tests, 0.39 s] sage t type_folded.py [37 tests, 0.23 s] sage t type_reducible.py [72 tests, 0.30 s] sage t type_relabel.py [138 tests, 1.94 s] sage t weight_lattice_realizations.py [200 tests, 2.08 s] sage t weight_space.py [82 tests, 18.63 s] sage t weyl_characters.py [266 tests, 4.40 s] sage t weyl_group.py [180 tests, 8.64 s]  All tests passed!  Total time for all tests: 176.0 seconds cpu time: 140.0 seconds cumulative wall time: 169.7 seconds
modform_hecketriangle anne$ sage t *.py too few successful tests, not using stored timings Running doctests with ID 201410102244490b9b275e. Doctesting 15 files. sage t __init__.py [0 tests, 0.00 s] sage t abstract_ring.py [377 tests, 3.89 s] sage t abstract_space.py [309 tests, 9.34 s] sage t all.py [0 tests, 0.00 s] sage t analytic_type.py [119 tests, 0.60 s] sage t constructor.py [31 tests, 0.97 s] sage t element.py [35 tests, 1.17 s] sage t functors.py [121 tests, 1.20 s] sage t graded_ring.py [65 tests, 0.48 s] sage t graded_ring_element.py [409 tests, 24.97 s] sage t hecke_triangle_groups.py [112 tests, 1.89 s] sage t readme.py [94 tests, 4.54 s] sage t series_constructor.py [144 tests, 0.51 s] sage t space.py [186 tests, 5.31 s] sage t subspace.py [86 tests, 3.62 s]  All tests passed!  Total time for all tests: 60.2 seconds cpu time: 57.1 seconds cumulative wall time: 58.5 seconds
Did you pull the latest version?
Anne
comment:57 in reply to: ↑ 56 Changed 8 years ago by
You are right (I was in the wrong branch when running the tests whilst trying to investigate the doc build failure). I get the same doc failures.
Posets are used in src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle/analytic_type.py
Anne
comment:58 followup: ↓ 59 Changed 8 years ago by
Hello !
I think that there is something wrong with the code for canonical label:
sage: Poset(digraphs.Path(10)).canonical_label().linear_extension() [0, 9, 7, 5, 3, 2, 4, 6, 8, 1]
In particular, the code looks like you suppose that range(n)
is a linear extension of a canonically labelled digraph, and this is wrong:
sage: digraphs.Path(10).canonical_label(certify=True)[1] {0: 0, 1: 9, 2: 7, 3: 5, 4: 3, 5: 2, 6: 4, 7: 6, 8: 8, 9: 1}
This seems to work fine with the latest beta release
sage: Poset(digraphs.Path(10)).canonical_label().linear_extension() [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Nathann
comment:59 in reply to: ↑ 58 ; followup: ↓ 60 Changed 8 years ago by
Hi Nathann,
I am not quite sure why this is supposed to be wrong. As you wrote the output of canonical_label
of DiGraph
is
sage: D = digraphs.Path(10) sage: D.edges() [(0, 1, None), (1, 2, None), (2, 3, None), (3, 4, None), (4, 5, None), (5, 6, None), (6, 7, None), (7, 8, None), (8, 9, None)] sage: D.canonical_label().edges() [(0, 9, None), (2, 4, None), (3, 2, None), (4, 6, None), (5, 3, None), (6, 8, None), (7, 5, None), (8, 1, None), (9, 7, None)]
I do not understand why (the documentation says that this is supposed to be unique, but there seems nothing unique about this particular choice to me). But with this we obtain
sage: P = Poset(digraphs.Path(10)) sage: Pp = P.canonical_label() sage: Pp.cover_relations() [[0, 9], [9, 7], [7, 5], [5, 3], [3, 2], [2, 4], [4, 6], [6, 8], [8, 1]] sage: Pp.linear_extension() [0, 9, 7, 5, 3, 2, 4, 6, 8, 1]
which is indeed the single linear extension for this poset. If this is not the desired output, perhaps someone should rewrite the documentation and specify precisely what this *unique* poset is supposed to be. Is it supposed to be naturally labelled perhaps? Is that what your problem is? It does not say so in the documentation.
Anne
comment:60 in reply to: ↑ 59 ; followup: ↓ 63 Changed 8 years ago by
Yo !
I am not quite sure why this is supposed to be wrong. As you wrote the output of
canonical_label
ofDiGraph
is
My mistake, I was convinced that I had displayed the poset with a .show()
and looked at a path labelled with 0,1,2,3,... while the linear extension was 0,9,... There is nothing wrong with this example indeed.
This being said, i still do not understand the code. Is the following behaviour correct ?
sage: P = Poset(digraphs.Path(4),['a','b','c','d'],linear_extension=True) sage: list(P.canonical_label()) [0, 1, 2, 3]
I do not understand what you do with the elements
list in canonical_label
given that the output is labelled with 0,1,2,3
. Especially when linear_extension=False
O_o
Nathann
comment:61 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from 68c2902122a52cc16a13831b80d7a52c4e98fe86 to eff9b6093b060eeaba124c94cf2045ff96662676
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
eff9b60  fixed doc tests

comment:62 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from eff9b6093b060eeaba124c94cf2045ff96662676 to 8dddb16ee9bce94fab03989228cf83dd567f8ac0
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
8dddb16  changes to canonical_label

comment:63 in reply to: ↑ 60 ; followup: ↓ 64 Changed 8 years ago by
Hi Nathann,
My mistake, I was convinced that I had displayed the poset with a
.show()
and looked at a path labelled with 0,1,2,3,... while the linear extension was 0,9,... There is nothing wrong with this example indeed.
Ok. Why does the documentation say *unique* though? It does not make sense to me.
This being said, i still do not understand the code. Is the following behaviour correct ?
sage: P = Poset(digraphs.Path(4),['a','b','c','d'],linear_extension=True) sage: list(P.canonical_label()) [0, 1, 2, 3]
I think so. The documentation says that canonical_label
is supposed to label the poset with elements \{0,1,\ldots,n1\}
. I changed the code slightly, so that [0,1,2,...]
is a linear extension of the canonical relabeled poset.
I do not understand what you do with the
elements
list incanonical_label
given that the output is labelled with0,1,2,3
. Especially whenlinear_extension=False
O_o
The documentation says that canonical relabeled means indexed by 0,1,\ldots,n1
. I did not write this code, so am not sure what this is used for.
Internally, now the poset code still stores P._hasse_diagram
as a Hasse diagram on 0,1,\ldots,n1
to make it lightweight and only compare integers internally. The elements are taken from the Hasse diagram, when elements
is not specified. So passing a Hasse diagram that is on 0,1,\ldots,n1
will automatically make the element set equal to this.
Anne
PS: I fixed the doc failures that John reported except the ones in src/sage/modular/modform_hecketriangle
New commits:
8dddb16  changes to canonical_label

comment:64 in reply to: ↑ 63 ; followup: ↓ 65 Changed 8 years ago by
Hello !
Ok. Why does the documentation say *unique* though? It does not make sense to me.
Take two digraphs D1,D2
labelled on whatever you want, and such that D1.is_isomorphic(D2)
is True. Then D1.canonical_label()==D2.canonical_label()
is True. In such a way, the output of canonical_label
is unique on its isomorphism class.
To me this is a sufficient reason to raise an exception in canonical_label
when an linear extension is defined: DiGraph.canonical_label
ignores the linear extension, and so the output is not unique for a pair "Poset, linear extension".
I also believe that is_isomorphic
should raise an exception in that case.
I think so. The documentation says that
canonical_label
is supposed to label the poset with elements\{0,1,\ldots,n1\}
. I changed the code slightly, so that [0,1,2,...] is a linear extension of the canonical relabeled poset.
Okay, but now the code totally ignores the linear extension that may be stored within the poset. I have nothing against that, but it would be more honest to raise an exception in that case, to say to the "PosetWithLinearExtension?" users that they should first explicitly convert their poset to a 'normal one' before computing that. We are unable to compute a canonical label for a pair "Poset, linear extension" right now.
Nathann
comment:65 in reply to: ↑ 64 ; followup: ↓ 66 Changed 8 years ago by
Ok. Why does the documentation say *unique* though? It does not make sense to me.
Take two digraphs
D1,D2
labelled on whatever you want, and such thatD1.is_isomorphic(D2)
is True. ThenD1.canonical_label()==D2.canonical_label()
is True. In such a way, the output ofcanonical_label
is unique on its isomorphism class.
That condition is fine, but the labeling of the "canonical" labeling is still arbitrary and not unique (as you can see, it has changed).
To me this is a sufficient reason to raise an exception in
canonical_label
when an linear extension is defined:DiGraph.canonical_label
ignores the linear extension, and so the output is not unique for a pair "Poset, linear extension".
Why? Your isomorphism property is still satisfied:
sage: p1 = Poset(d, linear_extension=True) sage: p2 = p1.relabel({1:1,2:3,3:2}) sage: q1 = p1.canonical_label() sage: q2 = p2.canonical_label() sage: q1.is_isomorphic(q2) True sage: q1._linear_extension True sage: q2._linear_extension True
I also believe that
is_isomorphic
should raise an exception in that case.
No, it checks that the posets are isomorphic (which has nothing to do with the linear extension chosen).
Anne
comment:66 in reply to: ↑ 65 ; followup: ↓ 68 Changed 8 years ago by
That condition is fine, but the labeling of the "canonical" labeling is still arbitrary and not unique (as you can see, it has changed).
No, it is unique. And it is always integers from 0 to n1.
Try it in Sage: take a graph D1
labelled on whatever you want, then compute its canonical representative R
. Then relabel the vertices of D1
into a graph D2
in any way you like: the representatie of D2
will be equal to R
.
Why? Your isomorphism property is still satisfied:
Two pairs "Poset, linear_extension" are "isomorphic" if there is an isomorphism of the two posets that sends the first linear extension on the second linear extension. But we never check this second part (and similarly for the canonical representatives).
For instance, if P
is a poset on three points 0,1,2 where the cover relations are only (1<2), then the pair "Poset, linear extension" equal to P,[0,1,2]
is not isomorphic to P,[1,0,2]
.
No, it checks that the posets are isomorphic (which has nothing to do with the linear extension chosen).
Indeed, and to me that is incorrect. It is quite simple: you cannot say that two "posets with linear extension" P1,P2
are isomorphic unless there is a relabel function f
such that P1.relabel(f)==P2
.
As it is implemented right now this does not hold.
Nathann
comment:67 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from 8dddb16ee9bce94fab03989228cf83dd567f8ac0 to 115a32500018148858b06dc0040fc0a4e506041a
comment:68 in reply to: ↑ 66 ; followup: ↓ 74 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to ncohen:
That condition is fine, but the labeling of the "canonical" labeling is still arbitrary and not unique (as you can see, it has changed).
No, it is unique. And it is always integers from 0 to n1.
Try it in Sage: take a graph
D1
labelled on whatever you want, then compute its canonical representativeR
. Then relabel the vertices ofD1
into a graphD2
in any way you like: the representatie ofD2
will be equal toR
.
However the labeling itself is not unique. Consider the path on 3 vertices with labelings 0  1  2
and 1  0  2
. The first one is no more canonical than the second.
Two pairs "Poset, linear_extension" are "isomorphic" if there is an isomorphism of the two posets that sends the first linear extension on the second linear extension. But we never check this second part (and similarly for the canonical representatives).
For instance, if
P
is a poset on three points 0,1,2 where the cover relations are only (1<2), then the pair "Poset, linear extension" equal toP,[0,1,2]
is not isomorphic toP,[1,0,2]
.No, it checks that the posets are isomorphic (which has nothing to do with the linear extension chosen).
Indeed, and to me that is incorrect. It is quite simple: you cannot say that two "posets with linear extension"
P1,P2
are isomorphic unless there is a relabel functionf
such thatP1.relabel(f)==P2
.As it is implemented right now this does not hold.
It depends on what we want to actually check. Yet as currently stated in the documentation of is_isomorphic
, it does return the correct value as it checks "if both posets are isomorphic". My thought is that if we decide we want to also check with a specified linear extension, then we add another argument to is_isomorphic
. At present, the method should not raise an error, and this should probably be done on another ticket.
Anyways, doctests are now all fixed.
comment:69 followup: ↓ 70 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from 115a32500018148858b06dc0040fc0a4e506041a to aa1cc73510663efb9552f12dd432109c8fd0d20d
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
aa1cc73  two more doc fixes in order_tree

comment:70 in reply to: ↑ 69 ; followups: ↓ 75 ↓ 78 Changed 8 years ago by
There were two more doc test failures in combinat/ordered_trees.py
due to the noncanonical way of labeling the vertices in canonical_label
. I fixed those. Everything else looks ok to me.
However the labeling itself is not unique. Consider the path on 3 vertices with labelings 0  1  2 and 1  0  2. The first one is no more canonical than the second.
Precisely!
John: if you are happy now, can we set it back to positive review?
Nathann: if you are still unhappy, please change the behavior in a different ticket. In this ticket we wanted to keep the behavior of the posets with _linear_extension = True
as previous.
comment:71 followup: ↓ 72 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from aa1cc73510663efb9552f12dd432109c8fd0d20d to c5c6a0c6c0cc48a2ce6a89652aaccb48b35b987a
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
c5c6a0c  oops, undid the ipython change

comment:72 in reply to: ↑ 71 Changed 8 years ago by
Oops, sorry, I accidentally pushed the ipython change (without which my sage does not even start any longer) ... but that is a problem with the most recent develop branch.
comment:73 Changed 8 years ago by
Should I complain here that relabel
is also broken with return type:
P=LatticePoset({1:[2]}) P.relabel(lambda x: x+1)
outputs "Finite poset containing 2 elements".
comment:74 in reply to: ↑ 68 Changed 8 years ago by
Hello,
It depends on what we want to actually check. Yet as currently stated in the documentation of
is_isomorphic
, it does return the correct value as it checks "if both posets are isomorphic". My thought is that if we decide we want to also check with a specified linear extension, then we add another argument tois_isomorphic
. At present, the method should not raise an error, and this should probably be done on another ticket.
Well. I am convinced that you understand what is happening right now, and that you know how and why it is that while two posets object P1,P2
may be reported to be isomorphic by Sage, it does not necessarily mean that there is a relabelling of one that makes it equal to the other. I will not fight for the bugs of this 'poset with linear extension' feature.
Nathann
comment:75 in reply to: ↑ 70 Changed 8 years ago by
Hello !
Nathann: if you are still unhappy, please change the behavior in a different ticket. In this ticket we wanted to keep the behavior of the posets with
_linear_extension = True
as previous.
Well I still have to look at the commits you added, but otherwise it does it job. Thanks for fixing that bug in the end.
Nathann
comment:76 Changed 8 years ago by
Hello,
Besides Jori's report, I have one question. Why did you do this change ?
 G = DiGraph(self._hasse_diagram).relabel(self._list, inplace=False) + G = DiGraph(self._hasse_diagram).relabel(self._elements, inplace=False)
Did the meaning of self._list
changed in some way ? If it did, this function probably isn't the only one that needs to be updated O_o
More importantly: aren't self._list
and self._elements
the same thing ? It would be nice in a later patch to change this name is something like linear_extension
, for it really is a pain to work with this class when variables are not named according to what they represent. And perhaps one day it will become trustworthy :P
Thanks,
Nathann
comment:77 followups: ↓ 79 ↓ 81 Changed 8 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
No, self._list
are wrapped elements (if not a facade), whereas self._elements
are always the unwrapped elements, and we always want to label the digraph by the unwrapped elements.
The return type of relabel should be another ticket IMO.
comment:78 in reply to: ↑ 70 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to aschilling:
John: if you are happy now, can we set it back to positive review?
As long as doctests pass and the documentation builds, I'm happy. I'm also not seriously reviewing this ticket  I haven't looked at any of the code and I don't plan to  so everyone else needs to be happy, too.
comment:79 in reply to: ↑ 77 ; followup: ↓ 80 Changed 8 years ago by
No,
self._list
are wrapped elements (if not a facade), whereasself._elements
are always the unwrapped elements, and we always want to label the digraph by the unwrapped elements.
Okay. Do you have any objections if later the following variables are renamed
_list
>_linear_extension_of_wrapped_elements
_elements
>_linear_extension_of_unwrapped_elements
By the way, what would you think in this ticket of renaming the linear_extension
parameter you added ? The name does not sound at all like it is a boolean variable, and you create a Poset._linear_extension
variable which is boolean. If you renamed it to Poset._carries_linear_extension
or something (whose name sounds like a boolean variable) we could rename _list
to _linear_extension
and _elements
to _linear_extension_unwrapped_elements
(which I think is better/shorter).
The thing is that if we have to rename linear_extension
later we will have to deprecate it > loss of time.
Nathann
comment:80 in reply to: ↑ 79 ; followup: ↓ 82 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to ncohen:
No,
self._list
are wrapped elements (if not a facade), whereasself._elements
are always the unwrapped elements, and we always want to label the digraph by the unwrapped elements.Okay. Do you have any objections if later the following variables are renamed
_list
>_linear_extension_of_wrapped_elements
_elements
>_linear_extension_of_unwrapped_elements
By the way, what would you think in this ticket of renaming the
linear_extension
parameter you added ? The name does not sound at all like it is a boolean variable, and you create aPoset._linear_extension
variable which is boolean. If you renamed it toPoset._carries_linear_extension
or something (whose name sounds like a boolean variable) we could rename_list
to_linear_extension
and_elements
to_linear_extension_unwrapped_elements
(which I think is better/shorter).The thing is that if we have to rename
linear_extension
later we will have to deprecate it > loss of time.Nathann
Go ahead and write a review patch which makes these changes!
Anne
comment:81 in reply to: ↑ 77 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:82 in reply to: ↑ 80 ; followup: ↓ 83 Changed 8 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Go ahead and write a review patch which makes these changes!
I will. The branch still does not pass tests though
sage t long src/sage/categories/finite_coxeter_groups.py
Nathann
comment:83 in reply to: ↑ 82 ; followup: ↓ 84 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to ncohen:
Go ahead and write a review patch which makes these changes!
I will. The branch still does not pass tests though
sage t long src/sage/categories/finite_coxeter_groups.py
On both Travis' and my machine there is no problem
sage t long finite_coxeter_groups.py too few successful tests, not using stored timings Running doctests with ID 20141013141529a31aa4aa. Doctesting 1 file. sage t long finite_coxeter_groups.py [91 tests, 7.57 s]  All tests passed!  Total time for all tests: 8.0 seconds cpu time: 6.1 seconds cumulative wall time: 7.6 seconds
Please post at least the error that you get!
comment:84 in reply to: ↑ 83 ; followup: ↓ 85 Changed 8 years ago by
Yo !
On both Travis' and my machine there is no problem
O_o
Weird.
Please post at least the error that you get!
I get three things like that
sage t long categories/finite_coxeter_groups.py ********************************************************************** File "categories/finite_coxeter_groups.py", line 143, in sage.categories.finite_coxeter_groups.FiniteCoxeterGroups.ParentMethods.bruhat_poset Failed example: P.show() Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 488, in _run self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs) File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 851, in compile_and_execute exec(compiled, globs) File "<doctest sage.categories.finite_coxeter_groups.FiniteCoxeterGroups.ParentMethods.bruhat_poset[3]>", line 1, in <module> P.show() File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/combinat/posets/posets.py", line 1523, in show vertex_size=vertex_size, vertex_colors=vertex_colors, layout=layout).show(**kwds) File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/combinat/posets/posets.py", line 1497, in plot **kwds) File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/misc/decorators.py", line 550, in wrapper return func(*args, **options) File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/graphs/generic_graph.py", line 15675, in plot return self.graphplot(**options).plot() File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/graphs/generic_graph.py", line 15376, in graphplot return GraphPlot(graph=self, options=options) File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/graphs/graph_plot.py", line 247, in __init__ self.set_vertices() File "/home/ncohen/.Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/graphs/graph_plot.py", line 426, in set_vertices self._pos[v], rgbcolor=(0,0,0), zorder=8)) KeyError: [0 0 1] [0 1 0] [1 0 0]
Nathann
comment:85 in reply to: ↑ 84 ; followup: ↓ 86 Changed 8 years ago by
Do you get these errors without the branch applied?
Anne
comment:86 in reply to: ↑ 85 Changed 8 years ago by
Do you get these errors without the branch applied?
I do not.
comment:87 Changed 8 years ago by
Works for me in a sage session too; same for view(P, tightpage=True)
.
FTR, I have Coxeter3, dot2tex, database_gap, and gap_packages installed on my machine.
comment:88 Changed 8 years ago by
For what it's worth, I see the same errors as Nathann both on sage.math and on an OS X 10.9 machine.
comment:89 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from c5c6a0c6c0cc48a2ce6a89652aaccb48b35b987a to 02e3dabb60bd4b7e63622966b6f4bfe07f94439f
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
02e3dab  Reverted change in hasse_diagram() to fix poset show(). Fixed related issue in dual().

comment:90 Changed 8 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
This should fix the problems. I reverted the change that made hasse_diagram()
's labels be the labels as opposed to (for nonfacade parents) elements of the poset. I also made a related change in dual()
. I uninstalled dot2tex from my machine and was able to reproduce the error and checked things in that state and after reinstalling dot2tex.
comment:91 Changed 8 years ago by
FTR, this conflicts with #16933 which also removes the p(i)
for p[i]
thing.
comment:92 Changed 8 years ago by
Okay, after having tried again I will not rename those attributes ._list
and ._elements
, for it breaks doctests everywhere as everybody calls the private parameters directly.
Nathann
comment:93 followup: ↓ 94 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from 02e3dabb60bd4b7e63622966b6f4bfe07f94439f to e677d31fa4e40822bcd00c509dd1ca94ed6de52d
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
e677d31  trac #14019: rename _linear_extension to _carries_linear_extension

comment:94 in reply to: ↑ 93 ; followup: ↓ 95 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to git:
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
e677d31 trac #14019: rename _linear_extension to _carries_linear_extension
Thanks so much everyone for your work on this! Big kuddos to Anne and Travis for taking the lead!
I read the discussion, and the decisions taken make sense to me. I still need to have a look at the code, but what I had seen in an earlier version Anne had pointed me too was looking good, so feel free to proceed anyway.
Just one thing: I would prefer _with_linear_extension rather
than _carries_linear_extensions
since we already use this convention in our "WithBasis?" and friends. I can do this change if you wish.
comment:95 in reply to: ↑ 94 ; followup: ↓ 96 Changed 8 years ago by
Just one thing: I would prefer
_with_linear_extension rather
than_carries_linear_extensions
since we already use this convention in our "WithBasis?" and friends. I can do this change if you wish.
That is fine with me! Travis and I are done with the patch, so you can change whatever you two agree on!
Best,
Anne
comment:96 in reply to: ↑ 95 ; followup: ↓ 97 Changed 8 years ago by
That is fine with me! Travis and I are done with the patch, so you can change whatever you two agree on!
No prob !
Nathann
comment:97 in reply to: ↑ 96 ; followup: ↓ 98 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to ncohen:
That is fine with me! Travis and I are done with the patch, so you can change whatever you two agree on!
No prob !
Are we done now and can set positive review?
Anne
comment:98 in reply to: ↑ 97 Changed 8 years ago by
Are we done now and can set positive review?
Nicolas wants to rename something.
Nathann
comment:99 followup: ↓ 100 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from e677d31fa4e40822bcd00c509dd1ca94ed6de52d to 3afec891b4d2d75b659c163c540bf02606477810
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
3afec89  renamed _carries_linear_extension to _with_linear_extension

comment:100 in reply to: ↑ 99 Changed 8 years ago by
I renamed _carries_linear_extension
to _with_linear_extension
. Please set a positive review now if you are happy!
Anne
comment:101 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from 3afec891b4d2d75b659c163c540bf02606477810 to 1c0d02dd479f1805b3250bd8d79257e94369bffd
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
46f4fdc  remove deprecated code

ea330d3  revert remove of iterator() and list()

2e4f269  Merge remotetracking branch 'origin/develop' into depr_func

cf77bc2  deprecate compact argument

c79991e  Merge branch 'u/aapitzsch/ticket/16933' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into public/combinat/poset/fix_equality14019

1c0d02d  Merge branch 'public/combinat/poset/fix_equality14019' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into public/combinat/poset/fix_equality14019

comment:102 Changed 8 years ago by
 Dependencies changed from #17059 to #17059 #16933
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
I've handled the conflict from #16933, so we're back to positive review.
comment:103 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:104 Changed 8 years ago by
 Dependencies changed from #17059 #16933 to #17059, #16933, #16933
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Breaks docbuild after #16933 is applied.
comment:105 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit changed from 1c0d02dd479f1805b3250bd8d79257e94369bffd to 23de9f5da6ad88e771740e0ecc9404d9b39d283f
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
23de9f5  Fixing documentation and references.

comment:106 Changed 8 years ago by
 Dependencies changed from #17059, #16933, #16933 to #17059, #16933
 Reviewers changed from Travis Scrimshaw, Anne Schilling to Travis Scrimshaw, Anne Schilling, John Palmieri
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
Fixed. What had happened is we removed a reference (because it was a duplicate), but without deleting the doc first, there was still a reference for sphinx, which is why we didn't catch it before when we checked that the doc builds.
comment:107 Changed 8 years ago by
 Reviewers changed from Travis Scrimshaw, Anne Schilling, John Palmieri to Travis Scrimshaw, Anne Schilling, John Palmieri, Nathann Cohen
comment:108 Changed 8 years ago by
 Branch changed from public/combinat/poset/fix_equality14019 to 23de9f5da6ad88e771740e0ecc9404d9b39d283f
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:109 Changed 8 years ago by
 Commit 23de9f5da6ad88e771740e0ecc9404d9b39d283f deleted
 Reviewers changed from Travis Scrimshaw, Anne Schilling, John Palmieri, Nathann Cohen to Travis Scrimshaw, Anne Schilling, John Palmieri, Nathann Cohen, Nicolas M. Thiéry
Thanks Anne for finalizing!
Oh, yeah. And this patch also fixes this :
CombinatStyle.
Nathann