OA(9,135)

[ncohen]

A new one !

Nathann

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. Last 10 new commits:

​03c1f45	trac #16430: Small speedup for OA(None,p^c)
​8e8a9f3	trac #16430: Merged with 6.3.beta4
​162b83c	trac #16430: Many bugfixes
​3e01acb	trac #16430: micro improvements
​81b9448	trac #16430: put back the seealso
​d3f9702	trac #16347: merge #16430
​8bcbe6f	trac #16437: fix MOLS table doctest
​49169d5	trac #16437: use is_sum_of_two_squares and fix error msg
​1d1a476	trac #16347: optimize find_wilson_decomposition
​d94b4c6	trac #16524: OA(9,135)

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. Last 10 new commits:

​e64be98	trac #16423: tiny code improvement and alignment
​e948cf6	trac #16423: Aligning the alignment
​0a7d853	trac #16423: Broken doctests
​b329351	trac #16499: Cheap speedup in the OA recursive constructions
​a67c04f	trac #16500: New recursive constructions of Orthogonal Arrays
​41c50d5	trac #16500: Simplified find_recursive_construction
​e1992ce	trac #16500: doc + speedup
​697dd0c	trac #16500: Typoes in the doc
​71dad5d	trac #16503: q-x construction of Orthogonal Arrays
​4148cc4	trac #16524: OA(9,135)

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

​002ceee

trac #16524: OA(9,135)

[vdelecroix]

Hi Nathann,

This is not clear (at least to me)

This is possible, because `PG(2,2)` is a subdesign in `PG(2,16)`; in a
cyclic `PG(2,16)` or `BIBD(273,17,1)` the points `\equiv 0 \pmod{39}`
form such a subdesign.

It would be better to have the (273,17,1) from the difference family constructor... I just did it and there is an extra check in the doc that it is actually a cyclic one: u/vdelecroix/16524.

Vincent

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

​c6e78c8

trac #16524: move the cyclic difference set to the constructor

[ncohen]

Yo !

This is not clear (at least to me)

This is possible, because `PG(2,2)` is a subdesign in `PG(2,16)`; in a
cyclic `PG(2,16)` or `BIBD(273,17,1)` the points `\equiv 0 \pmod{39}`
form such a subdesign.

Ahahahah. It is "Julian Abel's truth". And as the constructions works... :-)

It would be better to have the (273,17,1) from the difference family constructor... I just did it and there is an extra check in the doc that it is actually a cyclic one: u/vdelecroix/16524.

I just pushed it to the branch, but in the future I guess that we will remove this function as we add the patch of all DF found in the handbook. We will not create a function for each of them, and it will be a dictionary ... Anyway !

Nathann

[vdelecroix]

Replying to ncohen:

Yo !

This is not clear (at least to me)

This is possible, because `PG(2,2)` is a subdesign in `PG(2,16)`; in a
cyclic `PG(2,16)` or `BIBD(273,17,1)` the points `\equiv 0 \pmod{39}`
form such a subdesign.

Ahahahah. It is "Julian Abel's truth". And as the constructions works... :-)

I mean, what is a PG? what do you mean by points \equiv 0 \pmod{39}?

It would be better to have the (273,17,1) from the difference family constructor... I just did it and there is an extra check in the doc that it is actually a cyclic one: u/vdelecroix/16524.

I just pushed it to the branch, but in the future I guess that we will remove this function as we add the patch of all DF found in the handbook. We will not create a function for each of them, and it will be a dictionary ... Anyway !

Of course, it is on my todo list... but in the meantime let us continue the way we started!

Vincent

[ncohen]

Yo !

I mean, what is a PG? what do you mean by points \equiv 0 \pmod{39}?

Oh ! Well, a projective plane ! PG = Projective Geometry. And the points congruent to = mod 39 are somehow "defined" as it is a cyclic design on 273 points.

Of course, it is on my todo list... but in the meantime let us continue the way we started!

Yepyep...

Nathann

[vdelecroix]

Hi,

More docs at u/vdelecroix/16524. It is the only method where the notation PG is used!! If you like, take it and set to positive review...

Vincent

[ncohen]

Hmmmm... I don't like to change his words but well... Okay, if you prefer...

Nathann

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

​a0294d3

trac #16524: more comments in the doc

[ncohen]

thanks !

[vbraun]

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/release/Sage/src/doc/common/builder.py", line 1490, in <module>
    getattr(get_builder(name), type)()
  File "/home/release/Sage/src/doc/common/builder.py", line 291, in _wrapper
    getattr(get_builder(document), 'inventory')(*args, **kwds)
  File "/home/release/Sage/src/doc/common/builder.py", line 502, in _wrapper
    x.get(99999)
  File "/home/release/Sage/local/lib/python/multiprocessing/pool.py", line 558, in get
    raise self._value
OSError: [combinat ] /home/release/Sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/combinat/designs/orthogonal_arrays_recursive.py:docstring of sage.combinat.designs.orthogonal_arrays_recursive.construction_q_x:65: ERROR: Unexpected indentation.

[vbraun]

Actually the bug is in #16503

[ncohen]

Can't reproduce it ...

Nathann

[vdelecroix]

Update to do, see #16503.

[ncohen]

No conflict -> no update needed. Stop making me work for nothing, or do it yourself.

Nathann

[vdelecroix]

Replying to ncohen:

No conflict -> no update needed. Stop making me work for nothing, or do it yourself.

Note: above this branch, the doc does not build. Should merge #16503 first.