Opened 2 years ago
Closed 11 months ago
#29683 closed enhancement (fixed)
"look up" a face in the face lattice of a polyhedron
Reported by:  ghkliem  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage9.4 
Component:  geometry  Keywords:  polyhedron, faces, meet, join 
Cc:  jipilab, ghLaisRast, vdelecroix, yzh  Merged in:  
Authors:  Jonathan Kliem  Reviewers:  Yuan Zhou, Matthias Koeppe 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  8190917 (Commits, GitHub, GitLab)  Commit:  81909176a611e8a0ec32eab9990c25467c417552 
Dependencies:  #31834  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
We implement two methods that look up a face in the face lattice of a polyhedron:
meet_of_Vrep
 the smallest face containing specified Vrepresentativesjoin_of_Hrep
 the largest face contained specified facets
This allows an easy answer for https://ask.sagemath.org/question/34485/whatisthemostefficientwaytolookupafaceinthefacelatticeofapolyhedron/#50965
Change History (88)
comment:1 Changed 2 years ago by
 Branch set to pubic/29683
 Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 2 years ago by
 Branch changed from pubic/29683 to public/29683
 Commit set to 521f9e0352a52e85f647dc2e2c9e6a784c563489
comment:3 Changed 2 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
There are failing tests. I would wait until the dependices are taken care of to make things work again.
comment:4 Changed 21 months ago by
 Milestone changed from sage9.2 to sage9.3
comment:5 Changed 21 months ago by
 Branch changed from public/29683 to public/29683reb
 Commit changed from 521f9e0352a52e85f647dc2e2c9e6a784c563489 to a6f53afd730cae0b29c666c3767636346d583de2
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:6 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
I want to redesign some of the setup before making everything more complicated.
More precisely, creating strucutures face_struct
and faces_list_struct
that take care of the details. Then this overly long argument list of get_next_level
will just reduce to three arguments or so. This would also make future changes easier including the transition to bitsets.pxi
.
comment:7 Changed 17 months ago by
 Branch changed from public/29683reb to public/29683reb2
 Commit changed from a6f53afd730cae0b29c666c3767636346d583de2 to 7e0a25e2196de51fe6c4b57b8ba446f69b374136
 Dependencies #29681 deleted
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:8 Changed 16 months ago by
Some quick comments:
 "The offset is taken correctly"  what's that?
 Change "reseted" to "reset"
 "In case of an unbounded polyhedron" > "In the case ..."
comment:9 Changed 16 months ago by
I discovered a bug by accident:
sage: P = polytopes.permutahedron(3, backend='cdd') sage: [x.ambient_Hrepresentation() for x in P.facets()] [(An inequality (1, 1, 0) x  3 >= 0, An inequality (1, 0, 1) x  3 >= 0), (An inequality (1, 1, 0) x  3 >= 0, An inequality (1, 0, 0) x  1 >= 0), (An inequality (1, 1, 0) x  3 >= 0, An inequality (0, 1, 1) x  3 >= 0), (An inequality (1, 1, 0) x  3 >= 0, An inequality (0, 1, 0) x  1 >= 0), (An inequality (1, 1, 0) x  3 >= 0, An inequality (0, 0, 1) x  1 >= 0), (An inequality (1, 1, 0) x  3 >= 0, An equation (1, 1, 1) x  6 == 0)]
The problem is that the backend cdd
doesn't put equations in a stable place, which my code assumed. It depends whether you initialize from Vrep or from Hrep I guess.
comment:10 Changed 16 months ago by
 Commit changed from 7e0a25e2196de51fe6c4b57b8ba446f69b374136 to 69740e73fa5df58a5ee4a69937cae6aeb58a7271
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
69740e7  improved documentation

comment:11 Changed 15 months ago by
 Milestone changed from sage9.3 to sage9.4
Setting new milestone based on a cursory review of ticket status, priority, and last modification date.
comment:12 Changed 13 months ago by
 Cc yzh added
comment:13 Changed 13 months ago by
 Commit changed from 69740e73fa5df58a5ee4a69937cae6aeb58a7271 to 84d05cec8716ec0ccae91275b0dc367d772e2cb4
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
84d05ce  fix a variable name and add a doctest

comment:14 Changed 13 months ago by
 Branch changed from public/29683reb2 to public/29683reb3
 Commit changed from 84d05cec8716ec0ccae91275b0dc367d772e2cb4 to deca8e0aa9df9eb7d4f77d9e6e984962c07c1543
rebased
New commits:
901b789  join_of_Vrep and meet_of_facets for face iterator

2a5a782  expose in combinatorial_polyhedron

6cecfd7  raise index error for index error; fix doctests

9a66e32  expose in Polyhedron_base

977c088  fix doctests

15e2c58  improved documentation

deca8e0  fix a variable name and add a doctest

comment:15 followup: ↓ 18 Changed 13 months ago by
From https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30469#comment:25
:meth:~sage.geometry.polyhedron.base.Polyhedron_base.meet_of_facets
 largest face contained specified facets` > contained in the specified facetsPolyhedron_base.join_of_Vrep(self, *Vrepresentatives): ... in case of...
> "in the case of" * 2FaceIterator_base(SageObject).join_of_Vrep(self, *indices): .. NOTE:: ... may not te well defined.
> "be" Why is it
meet_of_facets
, but notmeet_of_Hrep
? If rays/lines are allowed on the primal side, why doesn't it make sense to consider equations on the dual side?
comment:16 Changed 13 months ago by
 Commit changed from deca8e0aa9df9eb7d4f77d9e6e984962c07c1543 to ac9ff1e647c03bbca3a031f86a81e16e093bedae
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
ac9ff1e  typos

comment:17 Changed 13 months ago by
 Commit changed from ac9ff1e647c03bbca3a031f86a81e16e093bedae to e9769abbe1900c0f29e67e9ab85d0853b19a7ca2
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
e9769ab  another typo

comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 15 Changed 13 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
From https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30469#comment:25
:meth:~sage.geometry.polyhedron.base.Polyhedron_base.meet_of_facets
 largest face contained specified facets` > contained in the specified facetsPolyhedron_base.join_of_Vrep(self, *Vrepresentatives): ... in case of...
> "in the case of" * 2FaceIterator_base(SageObject).join_of_Vrep(self, *indices): .. NOTE:: ... may not te well defined.
> "be"
All fixed.
 Why is it
meet_of_facets
, but notmeet_of_Hrep
? If rays/lines are allowed on the primal side, why doesn't it make sense to consider equations on the dual side?
Lines are basically ignored as are equations.
However, rays do make a difference. This is how I came up with it 12 months ago. join_of_Vrep
is just better than join_of_vertices_and_rays
, isn't it?
In the end, I don't know what is best.
comment:19 Changed 13 months ago by
I'm very new to the topic. I just started learning about combinatorial polyhedra today, and haven't read all the code changes on this ticket yet. But I'm wondering if it makes more sense to start by faces of the (possibly unbounded) polyhedron as input. Let
P = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0], [0,1]], rays=[[1,1]]) sage: V = P.Vrepresentation() sage: V (A vertex at (0, 1), A vertex at (1, 0), A ray in the direction (1, 1))
Since "A ray in the direction (1, 1)" is not a face of P
, V[2]
shouldn't be taken as input for the lookup. Instead, the input could be something like [(1, 2), 0]
, where each element (= a single index or a tuple of indices) in the list must describe an actual face of the polyhedron.
For example, we can define the functions join_of_faces
and meet_of_faces
with input
faces
: list (iterator) of faces (not necessarily Vrep or facets), each face is described by a tuple of indices. Here index can be more flexible, such asP.Vrepresentation(4)
, etc. an argument telling whether the indices are primal or dual ones.
Just my two cents.
comment:20 Changed 13 months ago by
As for the combinatorial polytope: It's just a coatom(ist)ic and atom(ist)ic lattice with some extra properties. Hence the name join_of
and meet_of
. As the lattice is coatom(ist)ic and atom(ist)ic the concept of meet_of_faces
and join_of_faces
is redundant. To compute the meet of faces it suffices to compute the meet of the coatoms/facets. As it is only one depthfirst lookup the computation time of doing this is usually neglectable.
The unbounded polyhedron (no lines/linear subspaces assumed) is a bit different. It is basically a polytope with marked far face. The face lattice is given by [0, 1] \ [0, F]
. Where [0,1]
denotes the lattice of the bounded polytope and F
is the far face.
The rays are vertices of that bounded polytope and thus it makes sense to include them in the notion of a join. Computing the join is always well defined with the exception for the case where you only include elements of the far face, e.g. rays.
However, I don't have a strong opinion on a name scheme. In the combinatorial polyhedron module it should be join
and meet
I think, but in polyhedron/base.py
it might as well be look_up_face
or find_face
.
comment:21 Changed 12 months ago by
Given two faces (as polyhedra), if I'm interested in finding the largest face (as polyhedron) that is contained in both faces, is it better to call intersection or to apply join_of_facets
?
comment:22 Changed 12 months ago by
If you want the largest face contained in both of them, you need to do the intersection, which translates to the meet operation in the face lattice.
I would propose not defining the meet of the faces but instead the meet of the coatoms/facets. If you give me the faces as polyhedron, I need to first determine how your facetdescription of the facets corresponds to the facets of the original polyhedron.
Meet should be much faster, because all the information is already encoded in the combinatorial polyhedron. It is just a simple depth first search in a lattice, doing a couple of intersections and subset checks of bitsets.
But it also depends on the kind of output you want.
comment:23 Changed 12 months ago by
Actually what you describe is really easy to do, but neither implemented nor intended for in this ticket:
In your case you know (at least in the bounded case) that the intersection of both polytopes is exactly the convex hull of the intersection of the vertices. That is of course by far not true in the general case.
To determine the equations is really easy. It's just computing the kernel of a matrix.
The possibly redundant inequalities are given by the union of the inequalities.
So the only thing left to do (at least with backend field
) is to figure out, which of the inequalities is redundant.
But this is exactly the functionality that face_as_combinatorial_polyhedron
tries to implement as well.
comment:24 Changed 12 months ago by
Thanks!
Another possibly irrelevant question: for an empty face, does its ambient_H_indices
or ambient_Hrepresentation
mean anything?
P = Polyhedron(rays=[(1,0),(0,1)]) F = P.faces(1)[0] F.ambient_H_indices() # returns (0, 1) F.ambient_Hrepresentation() # (An inequality (1, 0) x + 0 >= 0, An inequality (0, 1) x + 0 >= 0) P.faces(0)[0].ambient_Hrepresentation() # same output as above
comment:25 Changed 12 months ago by
Stupid corner cases.
Yes, usually it ambient_H_indices
or ambient_Hrepresentation
does mean something for the empty face as well. But not in this case. There is at least two different definitions for faces:
 An intersection of hyperplanes corresponding to nonredundant inequalities.
 An intersection with a single hyperplane which corresponds to some inequality that the polyhedron satisfies (and maybe add the polyhedron as a face itself).
Usually they agree. But not in some case. In your example, there are two inequalities that are not redundant. They define those two unbounded 1dimension faces, the 2dimensional face is the empty intersection and the vertex. The empty face cannot be represented by those inequalities.
Different story for the second definition.
If you have at least two vertices, then things are fine. Sometimes cones are so much nicer...
That is why the CombinatorialPolyhedron
itself just ignores the empty face and the fulldimensional face for the face iterator.
comment:26 followup: ↓ 29 Changed 12 months ago by
I'm reading base.py
and find the following corner case:
sage: P = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0,0], [0,1,0]], rays=[[1,1,0]]) sage: Q = Polyhedron(vertices=[[0,0],[0,1],[1,1],[1,0]]) sage: a, b, c = Q.Hrepresentation()[:3] sage: P.meet_of_facets(b, c) sage: P.meet_of_facets(a, b)
That is, join_of_Vrep
and meet_of_facets
probably need to check if v
and facet
given as PolyhedronFace
or V/Hrepresentation
actually correspond to self
.
Some typos:
 Line 6960: empty line but
::
 Line 7025: maybe you meant that the index cannot correspond to an equation in the Hrepresentation.
 Line 7030:
ValueError: 0 is not a facet
>An equation (1, 1, 1, 1, 1) x  15 == 0 is not a facet
?
comment:27 followup: ↓ 28 Changed 12 months ago by
In /src/sage/geometry/polyhedron/combinatorial_polyhedron/base.pyx
, do the methods join_of_Vrep
and meet_of_facets
of CombinatorialPolyhedron
have input indices
corresponding to Vrepresentation
/Hrepresentation
or .vertices()
/.facets()
?
I guess it is the latter, but the documentation doesn't say. (And the name .._Vrepr
somehow suggests the former?)
I also got a SIGSEGV when trying the following
sage: Q = Polyhedron(lines=[[1,1]]) sage: CQ = CombinatorialPolyhedron(Q) sage: CQ.join_of_Vrep(0)
comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 27 ; followup: ↓ 31 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to yzh:
In
/src/sage/geometry/polyhedron/combinatorial_polyhedron/base.pyx
, do the methodsjoin_of_Vrep
andmeet_of_facets
ofCombinatorialPolyhedron
have inputindices
corresponding toVrepresentation
/Hrepresentation
or.vertices()
/.facets()
?
Same thing.
I guess it is the latter, but the documentation doesn't say. (And the name
.._Vrepr
somehow suggests the former?)I also got a SIGSEGV when trying the following
sage: Q = Polyhedron(lines=[[1,1]]) sage: CQ = CombinatorialPolyhedron(Q) sage: CQ.join_of_Vrep(0)
Bad.
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 26 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to yzh:
I'm reading
base.py
and find the following corner case:sage: P = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0,0], [0,1,0]], rays=[[1,1,0]]) sage: Q = Polyhedron(vertices=[[0,0],[0,1],[1,1],[1,0]]) sage: a, b, c = Q.Hrepresentation()[:3] sage: P.meet_of_facets(b, c) sage: P.meet_of_facets(a, b)That is,
join_of_Vrep
andmeet_of_facets
probably need to check ifv
andfacet
given asPolyhedronFace
orV/Hrepresentation
actually correspond toself
.Some typos:
 Line 6960: empty line but
::
This is common practice in sage. I don't know if it is good practice. It just means that this is another example explained by the previous comment.
 Line 7025: maybe you meant that the index cannot correspond to an equation in the Hrepresentation.
 Line 7030:
ValueError: 0 is not a facet
>An equation (1, 1, 1, 1, 1) x  15 == 0 is not a facet
?
Everything else will be fixed with the next commit.
comment:30 Changed 12 months ago by
 Commit changed from e9769abbe1900c0f29e67e9ab85d0853b19a7ca2 to bec98df2dccb965f029773fe385d2d410a528747
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
bec98df  improved documentation and check for elements to be of the correct polyhedron

comment:31 in reply to: ↑ 28 ; followup: ↓ 34 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
Replying to yzh:
In
/src/sage/geometry/polyhedron/combinatorial_polyhedron/base.pyx
, do the methodsjoin_of_Vrep
andmeet_of_facets
ofCombinatorialPolyhedron
have inputindices
corresponding toVrepresentation
/Hrepresentation
or.vertices()
/.facets()
?Same thing.
They are different in some cases, such as
sage: CQ.Hrepresentation() (An equation (1, 1) x + 0 == 0,) sage: CQ.facets() ()
comment:32 Changed 12 months ago by
Ok. Forgot that.
comment:33 followup: ↓ 37 Changed 12 months ago by
This is certainly detail, but it bothers me that Polyhedron.join_of_Vrep
can take a line as Vrep (it simply ignores the line) whereas Polyhedron.meet_of_facets
would raise an error for equation or index corresponding to an equation. It is not symmetric. Also, I would give facet.dim() + 1 == self.dim()
a separate error message.
comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 31 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to yzh:
Replying to ghkliem:
Replying to yzh:
In
/src/sage/geometry/polyhedron/combinatorial_polyhedron/base.pyx
, do the methodsjoin_of_Vrep
andmeet_of_facets
ofCombinatorialPolyhedron
have inputindices
corresponding toVrepresentation
/Hrepresentation
or.vertices()
/.facets()
?Same thing.
They are different in some cases, such as
sage: CQ.Hrepresentation() (An equation (1, 1) x + 0 == 0,) sage: CQ.facets() ()
The whole equation thing is so messed up, I don't even know where to start.
It was never a good decision to permit those in the first place.
Sometimes it's first the equations and then the inequalities, sometimes it's the other way around.
Maybe have same consistently last throughout the module? What do you think.
I have the feeling that there are some really bad design decisions that are haunting me.
comment:35 Changed 12 months ago by
 Commit changed from bec98df2dccb965f029773fe385d2d410a528747 to bfb08f5176a2b21a67058db0b929393e29942af0
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
bfb08f5  typo

comment:36 Changed 12 months ago by
I mean the ambient_H_indices
of faces are not matching up the Hrepresentation
. That is one thing that is annoying.
comment:37 in reply to: ↑ 33 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to yzh:
This is certainly detail, but it bothers me that
Polyhedron.join_of_Vrep
can take a line as Vrep (it simply ignores the line) whereasPolyhedron.meet_of_facets
would raise an error for equation or index corresponding to an equation. It is not symmetric. Also, I would givefacet.dim() + 1 == self.dim()
a separate error message.
As stated above (at least I think I said this). It don't have a strong opinion on this. So you are proposing to just ignore equations? Or raise an error in both cases?
comment:38 Changed 12 months ago by
Indeed, the indexing is very confusing, even when there is no equations.
sage: P = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0], [0,1]], rays=[[1,1]], backend='field') sage: P.Hrepresentation() (An inequality (1/2, 1/2) x + 1/2 >= 0, An inequality (1/2, 1/2) x + 1/2 >= 0, An inequality (1/2, 1/2) x  1/2 >= 0) sage: P.facets() (A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices, A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 ray, A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 ray) sage: CP = CombinatorialPolyhedron(P) sage: CP.Hrepresentation() (An inequality (1/2, 1/2) x + 1/2 >= 0, An inequality (1/2, 1/2) x + 1/2 >= 0, An inequality (1/2, 1/2) x  1/2 >= 0) sage: CP.facets() ((A vertex at (0, 1), A ray in the direction (1, 1)), (A vertex at (1, 0), A ray in the direction (1, 1)), (A vertex at (1, 0), A vertex at (0, 1)))
P.Hrepresentation()
and P.facets()
are not ordered in the same way. Neither do P.facets()
and CP.facets()
. (Please ignore the above code block. I think I understand it now.)
Let's focus on the CombinatorialPolyhedron
first.
As you mentioned, it is weird that a face of a combinatorial polyhedron has ambient_H_indicies()
not matching ambient_Hrepresentation()
in length.
Example with equation:
sage: P = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0,0], [0,1,0]], rays=[[1,1,0]], backend='field') sage: P.Hrepresentation() (An inequality (1/2, 1/2, 0) x + 1/2 >= 0, An inequality (1/2, 1/2, 0) x + 1/2 >= 0, An inequality (1/2, 1/2, 0) x  1/2 >= 0, An equation (0, 0, 1) x + 0 == 0) sage: P.facets() (A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices, A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 ray, A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 ray) sage: CP = CombinatorialPolyhedron(P) sage: CP.Hrepresentation() (An equation (0, 0, 1) x + 0 == 0, An inequality (1/2, 1/2, 0) x + 1/2 >= 0, An inequality (1/2, 1/2, 0) x + 1/2 >= 0, An inequality (1/2, 1/2, 0) x  1/2 >= 0) sage: CP.facets() ((A vertex at (0, 1, 0), A ray in the direction (1, 1, 0)), (A vertex at (1, 0, 0), A ray in the direction (1, 1, 0)), (A vertex at (1, 0, 0), A vertex at (0, 1, 0))) sage: list(P.face_generator()) [A 2dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices and 1 ray, A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^3, A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices, A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 ray, A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 ray, A 0dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex, A 0dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex] sage: list(CP.face_iter()) [A 1dimensional face of a 2dimensional combinatorial polyhedron, A 1dimensional face of a 2dimensional combinatorial polyhedron, A 1dimensional face of a 2dimensional combinatorial polyhedron, A 0dimensional face of a 2dimensional combinatorial polyhedron, A 0dimensional face of a 2dimensional combinatorial polyhedron] sage: f = list(P.face_generator())[2] sage: f.ambient_Hrepresentation() (An equation (0, 0, 1) x + 0 == 0, An inequality (1/2, 1/2, 0) x  1/2 >= 0) sage: f.ambient_H_indices() # not sorted (3, 2) sage: cf = next(CP.face_iter()) sage: cf.ambient_Hrepresentation() (An inequality (1/2, 1/2, 0) x  1/2 >= 0, An equation (0, 0, 1) x + 0 == 0) sage: cf.n_ambient_Hrepresentation() # discard equation 1 sage: cf.ambient_H_indices() # discard equation (2,)
In my opinion, even through the lines and the equations are not used in the computation of a Combinatorial Polyhedron, they should be included in the ambient_V/Hrepresentaion
and ambient_V/H_indices
. It would be hard to choose between equations+inequalities or inequalities+equations for Polyhedron_base
since the order is not consistent throughout different backends. However, for CombinatorialPolyhedron
, I think it would make sense to fix the order, say, to inequalities+equations. (Note that currently it is equations+inequalities, which seems bad to me.)
Using this order with inequalities first, there will be no strange offset treatment needed for meet_of_facets
. We just require that the indices of CP.meet_of_facets(*indices)
cannot exceed CP.n_facets()
. Raise error otherwise.
Similarly, in CP.Vrepresentation()
, the order is vertices+rays+lines (as in the code right now). Thus, for CP.join_of_Vrep(*indices), we just require that indices cannot exceed
CP.n_vertices() + CP.n_rays()`. Raise error otherwise.
Perhaps, it would be useful to have CP.rays/lines/inequalities/equations
and cf.vertices/rays/lines/inequalities/equations
just for output? Not sure about this, but at least CP.n_rays()
seems needed.
Expected returns
sage: f.ambient_Hrepresentation() (An inequality (1/2, 1/2, 0) x  1/2 >= 0, An equation (0, 0, 1) x + 0 == 0) sage: f.ambient_H_indices() (2, 3) sage: cf.ambient_Hrepresentation() (An inequality (1/2, 1/2, 0) x  1/2 >= 0, An equation (0, 0, 1) x + 0 == 0) sage: cf.n_ambient_Hrepresentation() sage: cf.ambient_H_indices() (2, 3)
comment:39 Changed 12 months ago by
Now consider Polyhedron_base
.
To be honest, I often forget what join_of_..
and meet_of_...
mean in this class. I propose to rename them. How do def least_common_superface_of_Vrep(self, *Vrepresentatives)
and def greatest_common_subface_of_Hrep(self, *Hrepresentatives)
sound? I would prefer that the two functions are sort of symmetric. Lines and equations are allowed, but are simply ignored when passing to self.face_generator()
.
In the Hrepresentation, ppl
backend puts equations first, and field
, cdd
, normaliz
put inequalities first. (I was not able to install polymake
backend.) Thus, the offset treatment seems needed.
comment:40 followup: ↓ 42 Changed 12 months ago by
Note that equations would be ignored explicitly and lines implicitly. But for the user it's the same, I guess.
As mentioned before, CombinatorialPolyhedron
has some difficult design decisions. Equations are almost everywhere ignored. They are just added in the end to every face etc. Lines are not everywhere ignored. They really belong to the Vrepresentation of the CombinatorialPolyhedron
and are part of the indices.
A reason for this is that I wanted to have the dimensions of the faces match up with the original polyhedron. So lines are needed to push the dimension up. Is this a bad choice? I don't know exactly, however I would like to wait with this until someone really wants to work with polyhedra with lines.
One problem is the following:
Maybe we could treat lines and equations more symmetric at some point. I don't know what would be best.
I would prefer to keep join_of_
etc. However, it does not hurt to add the aliases you suggested. They do make sense. Maybe meet_of_Hrep
is really better for Polyhedron_base
.
CombinatorialPolyhedron.facets
and Polyhedron_base.facets
are really different things unfortunatly. Polyhedron_base.facets
just gives you the facets as faces in the order given by the face iterator (reverse). CombinatorialPolyhedron.facets
gives you the facets as Vrepresentation indices in the order of Hrepresentation
. Maybe I should just document this.
The order of the Vrepresentation
of CombinatorialPolyhedron
is not fixed. This just happened because you use Polyhedron_base
to initialize it. You can give it in any order you like and shuffle. Hence the strange method vertices
that gives you all the elements of Vrepresentation
that are not contained in the far face. (This is also historic. At some point I wanted to initialize CombinatorialPolyhedron
just from the incidence matrix, which is not possible, because some unbounded polyhedra have the same incidence matrix, if you do not consider the far face).
CombinatorialPolyhedron
does not distinguish rays and lines currently. Those are just things that happen to be in the Vrepresentation
. They are kept as indices and both contained in the far face. They also cannot really be distinguished in sage, because Cone
does not know lines at all. It just keeps to opposite rays:
sage: C = Cone([[1,0], [0,1], [1,0]]) sage: C.incidence_matrix() [0] [1] [1] sage: CP = CombinatorialPolyhedron(C) sage: CP.Vrepresentation() (N(0, 1), N(1, 0), N(1, 0), N(0, 0))
What's the number of rays in this case. Is it one or three?
comment:41 Changed 12 months ago by
I created #31834.
Please have a look after I pushed the changes, whether this looks reasonable.
comment:42 in reply to: ↑ 40 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
Equations are almost everywhere ignored. They are just added in the end to every face etc. Lines are not everywhere ignored. They really belong to the Vrepresentation of the
CombinatorialPolyhedron
and are part of the indices.
That makes sense to me. I often need to deal with polyhedra with equations, so #31834 would be very helpful to me.
I would prefer to keep
join_of_
etc. However, it does not hurt to add the aliases you suggested. They do make sense. Maybemeet_of_Hrep
is really better forPolyhedron_base
.
Sounds good! Keep join_of_Vrep
and meet_of_Hrep
for the base class and make aliases.
CombinatorialPolyhedron.facets
andPolyhedron_base.facets
are really different things unfortunatly.
Yes, I got it after looking into the code closely. At first, I imagined that CombinatorialPolyhedron.facets
returns CombinatorialFace
objects. (The output format was described in the docstring but I was not careful in reading it.) What's the reason to use an unusual output format? Can the conversion to Vrep indices be deferred to where that's needed (such as in __reduce__
)?
The order of the
Vrepresentation
ofCombinatorialPolyhedron
is not fixed.
I assumed that CombinatorialPolyhedron
has Vrepresentation
being "[vertices, rays, lines]" because this expression appears many times in combinatorial_polyhedron/base.pyx
Does it make sense to fix the order, or is it a waste of time?
In fact, .../polyhedron/representation.py
defines INEQUALITY = 0, EQUATION = 1, VERTEX = 2, RAY = 3, LINE = 4
. It's also used in #31702.
Currently, ppl
and cdd
backends do not respect this order (creating a lot of trouble for my doctests), and the other backends field
and normaliz
respect this order.
CombinatorialPolyhedron
does not distinguish rays and lines currently. Those are just things that happen to be in theVrepresentation
. They are kept as indices and both contained in the far face.
Ok. But don't we want a "canonical" representation (in terms of numbers at least) for CombinatorialPolyhedron
? Note that the polyhedron base class has that. For instant, are the combinatorial polyhedron generated by two opposite rays and the other polyhedron generated by one line considered the same?
They also cannot really be distinguished in sage, because
Cone
does not know lines at all. It just keeps to opposite rays: ... What's the number of rays in this case. Is it one or three?
Although Cone
allows for nonpointed cones, I believe that Cone
and in particular the Fan
class mainly deal with pointed (i.e. strictly convex) cones.
When the cone in question is not strictly convex, the standard form for the "generating rays" of the linear subspace is "basis vectors and their negatives", as in the following example:: sage: plane = Cone([(1,0), (0,1), (1,1)]) sage: plane.rays() N( 0, 1), N( 0, 1), N( 1, 0), N(1, 0) in 2d lattice N
Because Cone
has its rays in a "canonical" form, it would be possible for a CombinatorialPolyhedron
constructed from a Cone
to combine opposite rays to lines.
In my opinion, CP
in your example should have one vertex one ray and one line. I don't know how to express the line in terms of N(?, ?)
, but writing the vertex as N(0, 0)
looks weird to me too.
comment:43 Changed 12 months ago by
Just as with cones, Polyhedron_base
mainly deals with polytopes and strictly convex polyhedra.
Things with lines should be correct, but I don't think it is a very important use case. So if things are a bit ugly in the backend, it is fine unless someone really works with that stuff and wants high speed performance (or unless working around the bad design is more work then creating a better design and working with it).
comment:44 Changed 12 months ago by
While I agree that #31834 should be a base for this ticket, I don't think we should make this ticket here dependent on the other fixes.
comment:45 Changed 12 months ago by
 Commit changed from bfb08f5176a2b21a67058db0b929393e29942af0 to c1c14b5179133133873a0d36fbe50bcb5edad20c
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. Last 10 new commits:
ddce44a  raise index error for index error; fix doctests

1305ea2  expose in Polyhedron_base

9322749  fix doctests

11e4a50  improved documentation

fa75eb0  fix a variable name and add a doctest

2f66609  typos

44fbabf  another typo

f126c36  improved documentation and check for elements to be of the correct polyhedron

87b2f4d  typo

c1c14b5  ignore equations; make aliases

comment:46 Changed 12 months ago by
 Dependencies set to #31834
Ok, I think I have your requests taken care of for now.
comment:47 followup: ↓ 49 Changed 12 months ago by
src/sage/geometry/polyhedron/base.py
 facets > Hrepresentatives
def meet_of_Hrep(self, *Hrepresentatives): r""" Return the largest face that is contained in ``facets``.
 Equations at the end. Need to fix #31834. Without the fix, there could be a bug (
offset=0
butambient_H_indices
returns equations first) atfacet = H_indices[0] if H_indices[0] >= offset else H_indices[1]
. After the fix, the expected return of the doctest is(An inequality (0, 0, 1) x  1 >= 0, An equation (1, 1, 1) x  6 == 0)
.def meet_of_Hrep(self, *Hrepresentatives): TESTS: sage: P = polytopes.permutahedron(3, backend='field' sage: P.meet_of_Hrep(0).ambient_Hrepresentation() (An equation (1, 1, 1) x  6 == 0, An inequality (0, 0, 1) x  1 >= 0)
 Error message
raise ValueError("{} is not a Hrepresentative".format(facet))
else: raise ValueError("{} is the index of an equation and not of an inequality".format(facet))
comment:48 Changed 12 months ago by
 Commit changed from c1c14b5179133133873a0d36fbe50bcb5edad20c to be6236f98630610ff59f856e36b915f1c2d0eb7d
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. Last 10 new commits:
909c1fc  expose in Polyhedron_base

d6fefe4  fix doctests

50d7252  improved documentation

cb6256a  fix a variable name and add a doctest

c838617  typos

fd044af  another typo

20e282e  improved documentation and check for elements to be of the correct polyhedron

f3187b5  typo

e0841a9  ignore equations; make aliases

be6236f  small fixes

comment:49 in reply to: ↑ 47 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to yzh:
src/sage/geometry/polyhedron/base.py
 facets > Hrepresentatives
def meet_of_Hrep(self, *Hrepresentatives): r""" Return the largest face that is contained in ``facets``. Equations at the end. Need to fix #31834. Without the fix, there could be a bug (
offset=0
butambient_H_indices
returns equations first) atfacet = H_indices[0] if H_indices[0] >= offset else H_indices[1]
. After the fix, the expected return of the doctest is(An inequality (0, 0, 1) x  1 >= 0, An equation (1, 1, 1) x  6 == 0)
.def meet_of_Hrep(self, *Hrepresentatives): TESTS: sage: P = polytopes.permutahedron(3, backend='field' sage: P.meet_of_Hrep(0).ambient_Hrepresentation() (An equation (1, 1, 1) x  6 == 0, An inequality (0, 0, 1) x  1 >= 0) Error message
raise ValueError("{} is not a Hrepresentative".format(facet))
else: raise ValueError("{} is the index of an equation and not of an inequality".format(facet))
Thanks. Should be taken care of.
comment:50 Changed 12 months ago by
The segmentation fault persists
sage: P = Polyhedron(lines=[[1,1]]) sage: C = CombinatorialPolyhedron(P) sage: C.Vrepresentation() (A line in the direction (1, 1), A vertex at (0, 0)) sage: C.join_of_Vrep(0)
comment:51 Changed 12 months ago by
sage: P.join_of_Vrep(0)
also causes a segmentation fault.
comment:52 followup: ↓ 53 Changed 12 months ago by
And meet_of_Hrep
as well.
I'm currently trying to figure out how to resolve this. The FaceIterator
was never initialized in that case, which makes life a bit annoying.
comment:53 in reply to: ↑ 52 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
And
meet_of_Hrep
as well.I'm currently trying to figure out how to resolve this. The
FaceIterator
was never initialized in that case, which makes life a bit annoying.
I guess it's only on the extreme corner case where both C.vertices()
and C.facets()
are empty.
comment:54 followup: ↓ 55 Changed 12 months ago by
I'm actually surprised that Polyhedron([[0,0]])
works well. I did not expect this.
comment:55 in reply to: ↑ 54 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
I'm actually surprised that
Polyhedron([[0,0]])
works well. I did not expect this.
Polyhedron([[0,0]])
is not as special as Polyhedron(lines=[[1,1]])
because the former has a vertex in its combinatorial polyhedron.
To fix the segmentation fault, can we just raise error in FaceIterator_base.meet_of_Hrep
etc when i >= self._n_facets + self._n_equations
?
comment:56 Changed 12 months ago by
The special thing about it is that it has a far face. It tries to figure out, whether face
is contained in the far face, before finding the face via the iterator.
It assumes that the first face of visited_all
is the far face, which is not initalized, hence the segmentation fault.
comment:57 Changed 12 months ago by
 Commit changed from be6236f98630610ff59f856e36b915f1c2d0eb7d to 3d744884d5ff15943cc137da51ddb57467a9a572
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
3d74488  fix segementation fault

comment:58 followup: ↓ 63 Changed 12 months ago by
A weird question: why are the error messages different? There is nothing wrong, though
+ sage: it._meet_of_coatoms(1) + Traceback (most recent call last): + ... + OverflowError: can't convert negative value to size_t ... + sage: it._join_of_atoms(1) + Traceback (most recent call last): + ... + IndexError: atoms out of range
comment:59 followup: ↓ 61 Changed 12 months ago by
Another question that might sound silly: Why does if n_atoms == self.coatoms.n_atoms():
mean that the face is the universe?
comment:60 followup: ↓ 62 Changed 12 months ago by
I have trouble understanding the following code.
+ while self.structure.current_dimension != self.structure.dimension: + if face_issubset(face, self.structure.face): + if face_issubset(self.structure.face, face): + # Found our face. + return 0 + else: + # The face is not a subface/supface of the current face. + self.ignore_subsets() + + d = self.next_dimension()
When face_issubset(face, self.structure.face)
is False
, after self.ignore_subsets()
, why does it move to the next dimension directly? Does it skip all other faces of the current dimension?
Sorry for asking so many questions.
comment:61 in reply to: ↑ 59 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to yzh:
Another question that might sound silly: Why does
if n_atoms == self.coatoms.n_atoms():
mean that the face is the universe?
If you contain all the atoms there are, then you must be the universe. A face containing all of the Vrepresentation is the universe.
comment:62 in reply to: ↑ 60 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to yzh:
I have trouble understanding the following code.
+ while self.structure.current_dimension != self.structure.dimension: + if face_issubset(face, self.structure.face): + if face_issubset(self.structure.face, face): + # Found our face. + return 0 + else: + # The face is not a subface/supface of the current face. + self.ignore_subsets() + + d = self.next_dimension()When
face_issubset(face, self.structure.face)
isFalse
, afterself.ignore_subsets()
, why does it move to the next dimension directly? Does it skip all other faces of the current dimension?Sorry for asking so many questions.
Maybe self.next_dimension()
is not the best name. It goes to the next face and returns it's dimension. Might not change.
comment:63 in reply to: ↑ 58 ; followup: ↓ 64 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to yzh:
A weird question: why are the error messages different? There is nothing wrong, though
+ sage: it._meet_of_coatoms(1) + Traceback (most recent call last): + ... + OverflowError: can't convert negative value to size_t ... + sage: it._join_of_atoms(1) + Traceback (most recent call last): + ... + IndexError: atoms out of range
Because it tries to convert 1 to a nonnegative integer (I think when assigning it to i
, which is defined to be of size_t
). It fails then already and not in the next step.
comment:64 in reply to: ↑ 63 Changed 12 months ago by
Can def _meet_of_coatoms
use
if not all(i in range(n_coatoms) for i in indices): raise IndexError("coatoms out of range")
at the beginning to make the error message more consistent?
comment:65 Changed 12 months ago by
 Commit changed from 3d744884d5ff15943cc137da51ddb57467a9a572 to c3f028b45e1d365f6eee7ede2a0da604b34bd55a
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
c3f028b  check with a nice error for negative indices

comment:66 Changed 12 months ago by
ok, changed
comment:67 followup: ↓ 70 Changed 12 months ago by
It's true that face is contained in the far face, but why does this cause an error?
+ elif not self._bounded and not self.coatoms.n_faces(): + # Note: It is important to catch this and not to run ``face_issubset`` to prevent a segmentation fault. + if face_len_atoms(face): + # Contained in the far face, if it contains anything. + raise ValueError("the join is not welldefined")
Let P = Polyhedron(lines=[[1, 1]])
, I expected to get the line itself for P.join_of_Vrep(0)
, P.join_of_Vrep(1)
and P.join_of_Vrep(0, 1)
.
I thought that the smallest face containing (A line in the direction (1, 1) and/or A vertex at (0, 0)) is well defined in this example.
One can compare the above example to the following, which runs as expected.
sage: P = Polyhedron(lines=[[1, 1]], rays=[(1,1)]) sage: P.Vrepresentation() (A line in the direction (1, 1), A ray in the direction (1, 0), A vertex at (0, 0)) sage: P.join_of_Vrep(2) A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line sage: P.join_of_Vrep(0) A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line sage: P.join_of_Vrep(0, 2) A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line sage: P.join_of_Vrep(1, 2) A 2dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex, 1 ray, 1 line
comment:68 Changed 12 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:69 Changed 12 months ago by
 Reviewers set to Yuan Zhou
comment:70 in reply to: ↑ 67 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to yzh:
It's true that face is contained in the far face, but why does this cause an error?
+ elif not self._bounded and not self.coatoms.n_faces(): + # Note: It is important to catch this and not to run ``face_issubset`` to prevent a segmentation fault. + if face_len_atoms(face): + # Contained in the far face, if it contains anything. + raise ValueError("the join is not welldefined")Let
P = Polyhedron(lines=[[1, 1]])
, I expected to get the line itself forP.join_of_Vrep(0)
,P.join_of_Vrep(1)
andP.join_of_Vrep(0, 1)
. I thought that the smallest face containing (A line in the direction (1, 1) and/or A vertex at (0, 0)) is well defined in this example.One can compare the above example to the following, which runs as expected.
sage: P = Polyhedron(lines=[[1, 1]], rays=[(1,1)]) sage: P.Vrepresentation() (A line in the direction (1, 1), A ray in the direction (1, 0), A vertex at (0, 0)) sage: P.join_of_Vrep(2) A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line sage: P.join_of_Vrep(0) A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line sage: P.join_of_Vrep(0, 2) A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line sage: P.join_of_Vrep(1, 2) A 2dimensional face of a Polyhedron in ZZ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex, 1 ray, 1 line
Just copying self._far_face
properly takes care of this and the segmentation fault as well.
comment:71 Changed 12 months ago by
 Commit changed from c3f028b45e1d365f6eee7ede2a0da604b34bd55a to 110228e91a23dd8d843f5514d988aac670366d03
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
110228e  better check for the far face containment

comment:72 followup: ↓ 74 Changed 12 months ago by
It's still not all correct in the corner cases.
sage: P = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0]], lines=[[1,1]]) sage: P.Vrepresentation() (A line in the direction (1, 1), A vertex at (1, 0)) sage: P.join_of_Vrep(0) A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line
and
sage: R = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0]], rays=[[1,1]]) sage: R.Vrepresentation() (A vertex at (1, 0), A ray in the direction (1, 1)) sage: R.join_of_Vrep(1) A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 ray
Expected to have ValueError: the join is not welldefined
for both.
With one more vertex, it's correct though:
sage: Q = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0], [0,1]], lines=[[1,1]]) sage: Q.Vrepresentation() (A line in the direction (1, 1), A vertex at (1, 0), A vertex at (1, 0)) sage: Q.join_of_Vrep(0) ValueError: the join is not welldefined
comment:73 Changed 12 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:74 in reply to: ↑ 72 ; followup: ↓ 75 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to yzh:
It's still not all correct in the corner cases.
sage: P = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0]], lines=[[1,1]]) sage: P.Vrepresentation() (A line in the direction (1, 1), A vertex at (1, 0)) sage: P.join_of_Vrep(0) A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 lineand
sage: R = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0]], rays=[[1,1]]) sage: R.Vrepresentation() (A vertex at (1, 0), A ray in the direction (1, 1)) sage: R.join_of_Vrep(1) A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 rayExpected to have
ValueError: the join is not welldefined
for both.With one more vertex, it's correct though:
sage: Q = Polyhedron(vertices=[[1,0], [0,1]], lines=[[1,1]]) sage: Q.Vrepresentation() (A line in the direction (1, 1), A vertex at (1, 0), A vertex at (1, 0)) sage: Q.join_of_Vrep(0) ValueError: the join is not welldefined
It's consistent. Still one can argue about whether it should be changed.
What you are proposing is the following: Given a bunch of indices. If there are in the far face, throw an error.
Current behavior is the following (and I also wasn't aware of this, after all the ticket has been sitting there for a year): Given no indices, return the empty face. Otherwise, intersect all facets that contain all given indices. If that is contained in the far face, throw an error.
In the first of your cases, there is no facet. In the second case, the only facet does not contain the index. In the third case, both facets contain the line and thus the join is really not defined.
A different example where currently everything works out is the following:
sage: P = Polyhedron(vertices=[[0,1],[1,0]], rays=[[0,1],[1,0]]) sage: P.Vrepresentation() (A ray in the direction (0, 1), A vertex at (0, 1), A ray in the direction (1, 0), A vertex at (1, 0)) sage: for i in range(4): ....: P.join_of_Vrep(i) ....: A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 ray A 0dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex A 1dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 ray A 0dimensional face of a Polyhedron in QQ^2 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex
There is always exactly one face containing each ray. It even makes sense when you consider the lattice of the cone (or add the far face). The ray is of course a face of it's own there. However, there is a unique smallest face in the original polyhedron that contains it.
I think the current behavior makes sense. You could give me a bunch of rays of a large polyhedron and ask me, what's the smallest face containing them. As long as this is welldefined, you can except to get an answer and not an error. It's like computing gcd
and lcm
. It tries to find an answer for you and only fails if those two numbers do not have a unique meet or join.
comment:75 in reply to: ↑ 74 Changed 12 months ago by
Actually, I'm not considering combinatorial polyhedra, far face, etc. at all. Instead, I'm looking from a geometric point of view.
In the examples above, I see "A line in the direction (1, 1)" as l = Polyhedron(lines=[(1,1)])
, and "A ray in the direction (1, 1)" as r = Polyhedron(rays=[(1,1)])
. Recall that for a geometric polyhedron (of Polyhedron_base
class), it is a face of itself, and the empty polyhedron is also a face.
None of the faces of P
(including itself) contains l
. Similarly, none of the faces of Q
(including itself) contains r
. Thus, I expect an error in the first two examples.
None of the faces of Q
contains l
. Therefore, the third example returns an error.
comment:76 followup: ↓ 77 Changed 12 months ago by
I don't think one should see "A line in the direction (1, 1)" as l = Polyhedron(lines=[(1,1)])
, because whenever you don't specify vertices, but rays or lines, then the vertex (0,0)
is added.
P
contains the line and not l
, because l
is the line and the vertex (0,0)
.
No, the third example returns an error, because both edges of Q
contain the line, but not a vertex. So it is not welldefined.
Edit: Maybe rather say 1faces instead of edges. There are two 1faces of Q
that contain the lines, but no 0face of Q
contains the line.
comment:77 in reply to: ↑ 76 Changed 12 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
I don't think one should see "A line in the direction (1, 1)" as
l = Polyhedron(lines=[(1,1)])
Aha! That explains everything.
comment:78 Changed 12 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
comment:79 Changed 12 months ago by
Thank you.
That part with the implicit vertex is super confusing...
comment:80 Changed 12 months ago by
 Branch changed from public/29683reb3 to public/29683reb4
 Commit changed from 110228e91a23dd8d843f5514d988aac670366d03 to 644a803b196e966a555547a243257715860b6a2a
Last 10 new commits:
6e4fb22  fix a variable name and add a doctest

45cffb0  typos

117a15e  another typo

5d2d329  improved documentation and check for elements to be of the correct polyhedron

6ee3093  typo

4cf2b76  ignore equations; make aliases

40cb506  small fixes

dae644e  fix segementation fault

fd50a98  check with a nice error for negative indices

644a803  better check for the far face containment

comment:81 Changed 12 months ago by
Rebased on new version of #31834, which fixes trivial merge conflict because of whitespaces.
comment:82 Changed 11 months ago by
 Branch changed from public/29683reb4 to public/29683reb5
 Commit changed from 644a803b196e966a555547a243257715860b6a2a to 99ddc2f635e0546be6ee4f9813fea85486c79817
Only merged and rebased on #31834.
Last 10 new commits:
9cbd015  fix a variable name and add a doctest

4612fe5  typos

3b09b68  another typo

fe428aa  improved documentation and check for elements to be of the correct polyhedron

dd79e1c  typo

56c66a4  ignore equations; make aliases

80c80e5  small fixes

9afb276  fix segementation fault

ef5c95e  check with a nice error for negative indices

99ddc2f  better check for the far face containment

comment:83 Changed 11 months ago by
 Commit changed from 99ddc2f635e0546be6ee4f9813fea85486c79817 to 81909176a611e8a0ec32eab9990c25467c417552
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_review
comment:84 Changed 11 months ago by
easy merge of updated #31834
comment:85 Changed 11 months ago by
 Reviewers changed from Yuan Zhou to Yuan Zhou, Matthias Koeppe
Back to positive review. LGTM too.
comment:86 Changed 11 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:87 Changed 11 months ago by
Thank you.
comment:88 Changed 11 months ago by
 Branch changed from public/29683reb5 to 81909176a611e8a0ec32eab9990c25467c417552
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
Last 10 new commits:
documentation
coverage and small improvement
method `reset` for the face iterator
typo
method `ignore_subsets`
method current and fix for reset
join_of_Vrep and meet_of_facets for face iterator
expose in combinatorial_polyhedron
raise index error for index error
expose in Polyhedron_base