#6538 closed defect (fixed)
bug in Partitions
Reported by: | jhpalmieri | Owned by: | mhansen |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.3 |
Component: | combinatorics | Keywords: | partitions, days38 |
Cc: | brunellus | Merged in: | sage-5.3.beta2 |
Authors: | Travis Scrimshaw | Reviewers: | Benjamin Jones |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | #12925 | Stopgaps: |
Description
Looks like there is a bug in Partitions. Partitions(n, max_slope=-1) should give the partitions of n with distinct parts, right?
sage: Partitions(2, max_slope=-1).list() [[2]] sage: Partitions(4, max_slope=-1).list() [[4], [3, 1]]
But if you add the "length" keyword, it doesn't work anymore, at least not completely:
sage: Partitions(2, max_slope=-1, length=2).list() # doesn't work [[1, 1]] sage: Partitions(4, max_slope=-1, length=2).list() # works [[3, 1]] sage: Partitions(4, max_slope=-1, length=3).list() # doesn't work [[2, 1, 1]]
Attachments (1)
Change History (19)
comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by
- Cc brunellus added
- Report Upstream set to N/A
comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by
- Keywords days38 added
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Benjamin Jones
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to add doctests
The code you've written looks good. I think you should also add a few doctests in EXAMPLES or TESTS where appropriate to demonstrate that the issue in this ticket it resolved.
comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Doctests have been added.
Thanks for reviewing.
comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
- Work issues add doctests deleted
Changes look good and thanks for adding the doctests. You done some nice code cleanup too, which is great. Positive review pending make ptestlong
.
comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.1 to sage-5.2
comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by
- Dependencies set to #12925
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
It fails a doctest:
sage -t -force_lib devel/sage/sage/combinat/integer_vector.py ********************************************************************** File "/release/merger/sage-5.2.beta1/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/integer_vector.py", line 988: sage: IntegerVectors(3, 0, min_part=1).list() Expected: [] Got: [[3]] **********************************************************************
It also fails a test added by #12925:
sage -t -force_lib devel/sage/sage/combinat/tutorial.py ********************************************************************** File "/release/merger/sage-5.2.beta1/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat/tutorial.py", line 1635: sage: Partitions(2, max_slope=-1, length=2).list() Expected: [[1, 1]] Got: [] **********************************************************************
comment:8 follow-up: ↓ 9 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 ; follow-up: ↓ 10 Changed 5 years ago by
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Replying to tscrim:
It now passes the test for integer_vector.py, however the test in #12925 is incorrect since the partition [1, 1] has a slope 0 > -1. (Or am I now responsible for correcting this because #12925 has been closed?)
I have reopened that ticket, so they can fix their test.
Have you read the text just above that doctest? It is precisely *documenting* this bug.
So, I am glad that you fixed that bug, but this ticket #6538 is responsible for updating the tutorial accordingly. Please merge back #12925! It's been delayed long enough.
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 ; follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to nthiery:
Replying to jdemeyer:
Replying to tscrim:
It now passes the test for integer_vector.py, however the test in #12925 is incorrect since the partition [1, 1] has a slope 0 > -1. (Or am I now responsible for correcting this because #12925 has been closed?)
I have reopened that ticket, so they can fix their test.
Have you read the text just above that doctest? It is precisely *documenting* this bug.
So, I am glad that you fixed that bug, but this ticket #6538 is responsible for updating the tutorial accordingly. Please merge back #12925! It's been delayed long enough.
Tutorial updated accordingly.
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 5 years ago by
Tutorial updated accordingly.
Thanks! I am fine with this change.
Still, I am pretty sure that the underlying engine is still broken; if you can come up with an example illustrating that, please add it there!
Thanks,
Nicolas
comment:13 follow-up: ↓ 14 Changed 5 years ago by
Nicolas: it's not clear whether your comment should be interpreted as positive_review or needs_work? Could you change the ticket status to either of these two?
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Nicolas: it's not clear whether your comment should be interpreted as positive_review or needs_work? Could you change the ticket status to either of these two?
Sorry if I was unclear. Travis: I leave that decision to you. If you have an example, please add it. Otherwise you can put a positive review under hand.
Cheers,
comment:15 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
I can't find an example right now. I've tried with max_slope, min_slope, inner, outer, max_length, min_length, and multiple combinations of them and could not get any wrong results.
comment:16 Changed 5 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.3.beta2
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:17 follow-up: ↓ 18 Changed 5 years ago by
If you're still looking for something that gives the wrong answer, use parts_in
:
sage: [len(p) for p in Partitions(10, length=6, parts_in=[1,2])] [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] sage: Partitions(10, parts_in=[1,2]).cardinality() == Partitions(10, length=6, parts_in=[1,2]).cardinality() True
Another ticket?
Edit: I guess this is #12278.)
comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 17 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jhpalmieri:
If you're still looking for something that gives the wrong answer, use
parts_in
:sage: [len(p) for p in Partitions(10, length=6, parts_in=[1,2])] [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] sage: Partitions(10, parts_in=[1,2]).cardinality() == Partitions(10, length=6, parts_in=[1,2]).cardinality() TrueAnother ticket?
Edit: I guess this is #12278.)
Yup: I copy pasted this example as a comment in #12278!
However, I was looking for an example giving wrong results while only using the IntegerListsLex? engine (i.e. without parts_in). Thanks though :-)
Fixed by making changes to IntergerListLex? and not increasing algorithm's complexity. Fixed some other bugs in IntegerListLex? and Partitions when bad input is given.
Note: most of the work on this patch was done during Sage Days 38.