Opened 16 months ago
Closed 14 months ago
#27071 closed enhancement (fixed)
Make indices of V_representation of faces of polyhedron accessible through a new method
Reported by:  jipilab  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage8.8 
Component:  geometry  Keywords:  polytopes, faces 
Cc:  moritz, vdelecroix  Merged in:  
Authors:  JeanPhilippe Labbé  Reviewers:  Jonathan Kliem 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  553a2b1 (Commits)  Commit:  553a2b15cfd53863469af3100c6edf01b5cea314 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
Currently, we can get faces of polyhedron objects like this:
sage: P = polytopes.cube() sage: TwoFace = P.faces(2)[0] sage: TwoFace <0,1,2,3>
It is sometimes useful to get a straight access to the printed indices given by the _repr_
. Wishing something like:
sage: TwoFace.ambient_V_indices() (0, 1, 2, 3)
And it would be nice to improve the _repr_
of faces to have a more complete description:
sage: TwoFace A 2dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 4 vertices
... but for that one, better suggestions are welcome. The annoying thing with <0,1,2,3> is that it can be a square, and it can be a simplex, there is no way to know the dimension (which the face knows anyway) from the representation string.
To get the above, it was necessary to also implement n_vertices
, n_rays
, and n_lines
for faces.
Change History (17)
comment:1 followup: ↓ 2 Changed 16 months ago by
comment:2 in reply to: ↑ 1 ; followup: ↓ 4 Changed 16 months ago by
Replying to novoselt:
As a point of comparison to consider:
sage: P = polytopes.cube() sage: LP = LatticePolytope(P.vertices_list()) sage: TwoFace = LP.faces(2)[0] sage: TwoFace 2d face of 3d reflexive polytope in 3d lattice M sage: TwoFace.ambient_vertex_indices() (1, 3, 5, 7)This output is unified for lattice polytopes, cones, fans, and their components:
sage: F = NormalFan(LP) sage: F Rational polyhedral fan in 3d lattice N sage: F.cones(2)[0] 2d cone of Rational polyhedral fan in 3d lattice NAlso
sage: type(TwoFace) <class 'sage.geometry.lattice_polytope.LatticePolytopeClass'>so faces are polytopes as well and all the methods of "standalone polytopes" are available for them as well.
Oh! Great, yes this is pretty much what I had in mind. I should probably use the same name of methods, to make this uniform too.
Further, to get the face as a polyhedron, the method as_polyhedron
gives back the appropriate object:
sage: TwoFace.as_polyhedron() A 2dimensional polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 4 vertices sage: type(TwoFace.as_polyhedron()) <class 'sage.geometry.polyhedron.parent.Polyhedra_ZZ_ppl_with_category.element_class'>
comment:3 Changed 16 months ago by
 Branch set to u/jipilab/27071
 Commit set to 4a5c06e99ef6d3a727cc119cf77ee4230fe729b3
 Description modified (diff)
 Keywords changed from polytopes,faces to polytopes, faces
 Status changed from new to needs_review
New commits:
4a5c06e  first version

comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 2 ; followup: ↓ 5 Changed 16 months ago by
Replying to jipilab:
Further, to get the face as a polyhedron, the method
as_polyhedron
gives back the appropriate object:sage: TwoFace.as_polyhedron() A 2dimensional polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 4 vertices sage: type(TwoFace.as_polyhedron()) <class 'sage.geometry.polyhedron.parent.Polyhedra_ZZ_ppl_with_category.element_class'>
I found it more convenient to have faces being "honest polytopes"  do you have any reasons for NOT doing it? (This is not the goal of this ticket, of course.)
A couple of questions: do we have any general guidelines for n_vertices
vs. nvertices
? I used the latter, but don't really have any preference. Except that it annoys me to have both versions for different objects since it is hard to remember when to use what.
More to the point  the ticket was about getting access to "ambient indices" via a method and perhaps making _repr_
more complete. But now it seems that you have completely replaced the information that was in _repr_
before. Do you want to keep those indices in _repr_
at all? Do other people want it? Are they OK with a longish description now? In particular the old output of
sage: Polyhedron(vertices=[[0,0,0],[1,0,0],[0,1,0]]).face_lattice().level_sets()  [[<>], [<0>, <1>, <2>], [<0,1>, <0,2>, <1,2>], [<0,1,2>]] + [[A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3], + [A 0dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex, + A 0dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex, + A 0dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex], + [A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices, + A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices, + A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices], + [A 2dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 3 vertices]]
could be more desirable than the new one where different faces have the same repr.
To be clear  I am not saying that your changes are bad, they are after all very much in line with my choices for lattice polytopes, just want to make sure that all things and opinions are considered. Perhaps it is useful to combine verbose description with indices. And to keep it shorter I would vote for "2d" instead of "2dimensional". (Faces of lattice polytopes mention 3 different dimensions so space saving was particularly visible there.)
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 ; followup: ↓ 6 Changed 16 months ago by
Replying to novoselt:
Replying to jipilab:
Further, to get the face as a polyhedron, the method
as_polyhedron
gives back the appropriate object:sage: TwoFace.as_polyhedron() A 2dimensional polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 4 vertices sage: type(TwoFace.as_polyhedron()) <class 'sage.geometry.polyhedron.parent.Polyhedra_ZZ_ppl_with_category.element_class'>I found it more convenient to have faces being "honest polytopes"  do you have any reasons for NOT doing it? (This is not the goal of this ticket, of course.)
Well, the structure was already in place. Conceptually, I like to have an actual object for faces of a polytope. For example, they are the elements of the face lattice. Having them know "where they are from" is quite practical, one can ask for neighbors, etc. So all these methods are then in the class of PolyhedronFaces?... Having to do .as_polyhedron
is perhaps a good compromise there. For example, this question also goes for linear programs in sage where we have the method .polyhedron()
and .to_linear_program()
, whereas they could be considered the same... It just depends what one wants to do with them, and I would say that it makes sense to have the data structure PolyhedronFace? to do al sorts of combinatorial analysis.
A couple of questions: do we have any general guidelines for
n_vertices
vs.nvertices
? I used the latter, but don't really have any preference. Except that it annoys me to have both versions for different objects since it is hard to remember when to use what.
Good question. I followed the one for Polyhedron
objects for which there are n_equations
, n_facets
, etc. I just checked for graphs and it uses num_verts
, num_edges
, etc.
In this case, I would stick to the local convention on Polyhedron
.
More to the point  the ticket was about getting access to "ambient indices" via a method and perhaps making
_repr_
more complete. But now it seems that you have completely replaced the information that was in_repr_
before. Do you want to keep those indices in_repr_
at all? Do other people want it? Are they OK with a longish description now? In particular the old output ofsage: Polyhedron(vertices=[[0,0,0],[1,0,0],[0,1,0]]).face_lattice().level_sets()  [[<>], [<0>, <1>, <2>], [<0,1>, <0,2>, <1,2>], [<0,1,2>]] + [[A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3], + [A 0dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex, + A 0dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex, + A 0dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex], + [A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices, + A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices, + A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices], + [A 2dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^3 defined as the convex hull of 3 vertices]]could be more desirable than the new one where different faces have the same repr.
Yes, you are right. While I was changing the doctests, I was thinking that the information becomes somewhat lost (indices of the vertices) on the one hand, but also somehow still good on the other (dimension, ambient dim, and number of vertices).
What is better? Hm.
For example, when dealing with larger polytopes, does printing a list with 50 vertex indices instructive? Or rather "A 4dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^5
defined as the convex hull of 50 vertices".
There is no way to know anything from just a list of indices... At least, that's how I react everytime I see such a list. But yes, sometimes, I am quite happy to see the list of indices, but then I can not fetch them in any practical way (hence this ticket!). So in the end, having them stuck in the _repr_
was not the better way to go. The user can get exactly this output now through ambient_V_indices
.
I agree, this is a big change and this should be discussed. I should perhaps ask on sagedevel.
One compromise is:
Change the doctests back so that they show the actual list of indices (via the new implemented method) and not just the _repr_
. So at least the doctests are detecting potential reordering in the Vrepresentation.
To be clear  I am not saying that your changes are bad, they are after all very much in line with my choices for lattice polytopes, just want to make sure that all things and opinions are considered. Perhaps it is useful to combine verbose description with indices. And to keep it shorter I would vote for "2d" instead of "2dimensional". (Faces of lattice polytopes mention 3 different dimensions so space saving was particularly visible there.)
Sure, I appreciate your feedback!
Yes, I wanted to model it from your suggestion, while also keeping it uniform with the _repr_
of Polyhedron object which give, for example:
sage: P A 2dimensional polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 3 vertices
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; followup: ↓ 7 Changed 16 months ago by
Replying to jipilab:
For example, when dealing with larger polytopes, does printing a list with 50 vertex indices instructive? Or rather "A 4dimensional face of a Polyhedron in
ZZ^5
defined as the convex hull of 50 vertices".
Do faces have their own internal indices, i.e. are there edges randomlybutconsistently numbered 3 and 4? If yes, it could be useful to include this number in the output so one can see the difference between two edges in the output.
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 ; followup: ↓ 13 Changed 15 months ago by
Replying to novoselt:
Replying to jipilab:
For example, when dealing with larger polytopes, does printing a list with 50 vertex indices instructive? Or rather "A 4dimensional face of a Polyhedron in
ZZ^5
defined as the convex hull of 50 vertices".Do faces have their own internal indices, i.e. are there edges randomlybutconsistently numbered 3 and 4? If yes, it could be useful to include this number in the output so one can see the difference between two edges in the output.
The indices are fixed, they are the indices in the Vrepresentation.
I will change the doctests back to show the indices.
Concerning the naming convention, I would stick to n_
as it is already the convention within Polyhedron
objects. See the sagedevel discussion:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sagedevel/wgo18WKZTpQ
comment:8 Changed 15 months ago by
 Commit changed from 4a5c06e99ef6d3a727cc119cf77ee4230fe729b3 to c3e78c80403c35bd01fa073619dbac7cefa1b214
comment:9 Changed 15 months ago by
Ok, I would say that it is ready for review now.
comment:10 Changed 15 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Failing test in quick tutorial.
comment:11 Changed 15 months ago by
 Commit changed from c3e78c80403c35bd01fa073619dbac7cefa1b214 to 553a2b15cfd53863469af3100c6edf01b5cea314
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
553a2b1  Fixed doctest in thematic tutorial

comment:12 Changed 15 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
... ready to get reviewed. Hopefully all tests pass now.
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 7 ; followup: ↓ 14 Changed 15 months ago by
Replying to jipilab:
Replying to novoselt:
Replying to jipilab:
For example, when dealing with larger polytopes, does printing a list with 50 vertex indices instructive? Or rather "A 4dimensional face of a Polyhedron in
ZZ^5
defined as the convex hull of 50 vertices".Do faces have their own internal indices, i.e. are there edges randomlybutconsistently numbered 3 and 4? If yes, it could be useful to include this number in the output so one can see the difference between two edges in the output.
The indices are fixed, they are the indices in the Vrepresentation.
I will change the doctests back to show the indices.
That's not what I meant, sorry for not being clear. My question was: is there edge #3? Or a 5dimensional face #42? If that is the case, it may be useful to have this number in the repr. It does not have to be canonical in any sense, but when you have say a list of edges belonging to some higherdimensional face, it may be nice to see that they are #3, #5, #8, and #23, rather than just that there are four edges, all looking exactly the same. And in any case that's just a suggestion, I don't insist ;)
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 15 months ago by
Replying to novoselt:
Replying to jipilab:
Replying to novoselt:
Replying to jipilab:
For example, when dealing with larger polytopes, does printing a list with 50 vertex indices instructive? Or rather "A 4dimensional face of a Polyhedron in
ZZ^5
defined as the convex hull of 50 vertices".Do faces have their own internal indices, i.e. are there edges randomlybutconsistently numbered 3 and 4? If yes, it could be useful to include this number in the output so one can see the difference between two edges in the output.
The indices are fixed, they are the indices in the Vrepresentation.
I will change the doctests back to show the indices.
That's not what I meant, sorry for not being clear. My question was: is there edge #3? Or a 5dimensional face #42? If that is the case, it may be useful to have this number in the repr. It does not have to be canonical in any sense, but when you have say a list of edges belonging to some higherdimensional face, it may be nice to see that they are #3, #5, #8, and #23, rather than just that there are four edges, all looking exactly the same. And in any case that's just a suggestion, I don't insist ;)
Oh, I see now! Okay! Hmm, the ordering is decided at the level of posets, through the face lattice. I do not know how much the ordering would be canonical. Especially now with the transition to python3, I would not try to introduce in there...
Only vertices receive a consistent numbering through the Vrepresentation. The other faces do not...
comment:15 Changed 14 months ago by
 Milestone changed from sage8.7 to sage8.8
Ticket retargeted after milestone closed (if you don't believe this ticket is appropriate for the Sage 8.8 release please retarget manually)
comment:16 Changed 14 months ago by
 Reviewers set to Jonathan Kliem
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Looks fine to me.
comment:17 Changed 14 months ago by
 Branch changed from u/jipilab/27071 to 553a2b15cfd53863469af3100c6edf01b5cea314
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
As a point of comparison to consider:
This output is unified for lattice polytopes, cones, fans, and their components:
Also
so faces are polytopes as well and all the methods of "standalone polytopes" are available for them as well.