Opened 8 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
#14572 closed defect (duplicate)
Shouldn't the attacking_pairs method live in Partitions, not in Tableaux?
Reported by: | darij | Owned by: | sage-combinat |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
Component: | combinatorics | Keywords: | tableaux, partitions, combinat |
Cc: | sage-combinat, tscrim, chrisjamesberg | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | ||
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
I was scrolling through sage/combinat/tableau.py
and found this method of the Tableau class:
def attacking_pairs(self): """ Returns a list of the attacking pairs of self. An pair of cells (c, d) is said to be attacking if one of the following conditions hold: 1. c and d lie in the same row with c to the west of d 2. c is in the row immediately to the south of d and c lies strictly east of d. EXAMPLES:: sage: t = Tableau([[1,2,3],[2,5]]) sage: t.attacking_pairs() [((0, 0), (0, 1)), ((0, 0), (0, 2)), ((0, 1), (0, 2)), ((1, 0), (1, 1)), ((1, 1), (0, 0))] """ attacking_pairs = [] for i in range(len(self)): for j in range(len(self[i])): #c is in position (i,j) #Find the d that satisfy condition 1 for k in range(j+1,len(self[i])): attacking_pairs.append( ((i,j),(i,k)) ) #Find the d that satisfy condition 2 if i == 0: continue for k in range(j): attacking_pairs.append( ((i,j),(i-1,k)) ) return attacking_pairs
I see nothing about this method that actually uses the entries of the tableau, as opposed to just its shape. As the method is never used (or at least grep "attacking_pairs" -r *
doesn't find it anywhere outside its own definition), it shouldn't be hard to just move it, right?
Change History (8)
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by
- Component changed from PLEASE CHANGE to combinatorics
- Owner changed from tbd to sage-combinat
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.11 to sage-5.12
comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by
- Cc chrisjamesberg added
comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by
Oops, I forgot about this ticket. Everything I wanted to do about this is done and merged already in #15327. Sorry for the misdirection.
comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.1 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by
- Resolution set to duplicate
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
I agree (somehow I had missed this e-mail). I'm cc-ing Chris Berg to see if he has an opinion on this.