Meta-ticket: Polyhedron: new features and known bugs

[jipilab]

This meta-ticket collects tickets which are related to implementing new properties and features of polytopes.

• #10777: Make CombinatorialPolyhedron? a base class for polyhedra/lattice polytopes/cones
• #11564: Implement polyhedron unfolding (i.e net)
• #14222: Various little enhancements for Polyhedrons
• #15235: support for polygons (2D polyhedra)
• #17197: document Polyhedron defined over number field
• #19365: Bug in lattice_polytope.positive_integer_relations
• #20278: Compute fundamental domain for symmetry groups of polyhedra
• #22067: generating function of integral points of polyhedra
• #22181: Implement Minkowski decomposition of polytopes
• #22506: Add plots to the thematic tutorial on drawing polytopes with tikz
• #23556: bug in LattE
• #24637: get Koebe polyhedron from graph
• #25114: Cannot plot Cone that is a halfplane in 2d
• #25122: Construct RationalPolyhedralFan? from possibly overlapping cones
• #26357: Add thematic tutorial to the polymake interface, based on polymake tutorials
• #26366: Polyhedron - lazy backend; minimal vs. non-minimal presentations; Polyhedron constructor with both Vrep, Hrep
• #26368: Setting up a Polyhedron from both Vrep and Hrep - for backend='polymake'
• #27056: approximate volume of polytopes
• #27087: CombinatorialPolyhedron?: Check input on errors
• #27103: Further improve CombinatorialPolyhedron?: Enable SIMD-instructions
• #27365: integration over polyhedron with induced measure
• #27366: Polyhedron.affine_hull: more output options
• #27447: integrate over polyhedron when function contains a log
• #27448: compute normal vectors of surface faces of polyhedron
• #27637: Equivariant Ehrhart Theory
• #27728: Non-rational polytopes: Examples and constructor
• #27744: Make pynormaliz a Feature
• #28230: Thematic Tutorial on algebraic polytopes in Sage using Normaliz
• #28468: Bug with Polyhedron plot when too many plots
• #28599: RecursionError? and AssertionError? with regular_polygon
• #28634: Comparing Latte Integrale and Normaliz for Ehrhart polynomial computation
• #28776: Coercion between algebraic polyhedra fails

See also:

• #20875: Meta-ticket: Polytopes, lattice (integer) point counting / enumeration, and their applications
• #22710: Meta-ticket: polymake
• #22827: Meta-ticket: expose all normaliz features
• ##29799: Meta-ticket: Vector spaces and algebras of polyhedra
• #27063: Task: Transition of combinatorial computations of Polyhedron to Combinatorial Type
• #28893 Task: Parallel f-vector for polyhedra
• #29191 Task: Polytopal constructions for combinatorial polyhedra
• #29199 Task: Set up polyhedra with both Vrep and Hrep
• ​https://trac.sagemath.org/wiki/SagePolyhedralGeometry: Roadmap for Optimization and Polyhedral Geometry softwares interactions in Sage

[tmonteil]

Sould this be merged in #20875 ?

[jipilab]

Replying to tmonteil:

Sould this be merged in #20875 ?

Hmm. At the beginning, I listed some tickets there, this is true. Then, after looking at the description of #20875, I thought that the tickets I put were not directly in the description.

I planned to extend this list and to limit it to new methods implementations.

No big opinion, I simply thought to make this ticket a specific meta-ticket.

[novoselt]

I've made some improvements to lattice polytopes recently, e.g. #22309 if you care to include it here as well.

[jipilab]

Replying to novoselt:

I've made some improvements to lattice polytopes recently, e.g. #22309 if you care to include it here as well.

Great! Thanks for the pointer!

[novoselt]

Added 3 more tickets, a bunch of other optimizations and clean ups is almost ready but may take me a couple weeks to polish and post.

[novoselt]

Managed polishing today and will stop until some kind reviewer will take a look, sorry for hijacking the ticket - I just now noticed that it is about new features ;-)

[jipilab]

Replying to novoselt:

Managed polishing today and will stop until some kind reviewer will take a look, sorry for hijacking the ticket - I just now noticed that it is about new features ;-)

Don't worry it is good to keep track of open tickets!

[jipilab]

I cleaned the tickets that are now solved.

[jipilab]

Removed another batch of tickets.

[jipilab]

I did some cleaning after the SageDays100 and version 8.9.beta7.

(See ​https://wiki.sagemath.org/OptiPolyGeom for a history)

[jipilab]

Cleaned up the tickets that got merged in sage 8.9

[jipilab]

Cleaned-up from 9.0. See ​https://wiki.sagemath.org/OptiPolyGeom for more details.

[jipilab]

Cleaned some 9.1 tickets.

[gh-kliem]

Thanks for cleaning.

[mkoeppe]

Would someone be interested in writing a high-level section on polyhedral stuff for ​https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.1?

[gh-kliem]

Replying to mkoeppe:

Would someone be interested in writing a high-level section on polyhedral stuff for ​https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.1?

I did that. Anyone revision or improvement is welcome.

[jipilab]

Replying to mkoeppe:

Would someone be interested in writing a high-level section on polyhedral stuff for ​https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.1?

Very good revival (there used to be longer release notes... centuries ago)!

I'll have a look at what Jonathan did and add a few things. Perhaps it would be worth doing it for 9.0, for the sake of completeness and encouragement for people to do it too!

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-kliem:

Replying to mkoeppe:

Would someone be interested in writing a high-level section on polyhedral stuff for ​https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.1?

I did that. Anyone revision or improvement is welcome.

Thanks very much! Looking great.

[mkoeppe]

Replying to jipilab:

Perhaps it would be worth doing it for 9.0, for the sake of completeness and encouragement for people to do it too!

Yes, I think this would be valuable too.

[gh-kliem]

Done. As before revision and/or improvements are welcome. Now the release note for 9.0 are almost only about polyhedral geometry, but at least they don't look as sad anymore. And maybe people get the idea that if there are that many changes just in polyhedral geometry than a lot of work has been done.

Replying to mkoeppe:

Replying to jipilab:

Perhaps it would be worth doing it for 9.0, for the sake of completeness and encouragement for people to do it too!

Yes, I think this would be valuable too.