Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#9930 closed defect (fixed)
Additional test in is_even_hole_free
Reported by: | ncohen | Owned by: | jason, ncohen, rlm |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-4.6 |
Component: | graph theory | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Merged in: | sage-4.6.alpha2 | |
Authors: | Nathann Cohen | Reviewers: | Dmitrii Pasechnik |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Attachments (1)
Change History (12)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to needs_review
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:3 follow-up: ↓ 4 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 ; follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
Replying to ncohen:
I tried the loop included in this patch with 100 000 instead of 100, and it still works.... Sounds like we are safe on this side
:-)
Nathann
unless there is a probabilistic argument that with high probability we run into the cases we are interested in testing here, this won't fly... Random tests don't prove much otherwise. And here you don't even know what to look for, right?
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed 10 years ago by
unless there is a probabilistic argument that with high probability we run into the cases we are interested in testing here, this won't fly... Random tests don't prove much otherwise. And here you don't even know what to look for, right?
Well, there is a practical argument saying that the mistake appeared with a probability of 1%, as my comments on #9925 indicated (and which I tried on even longer sequences of tests). Besides, the graph I create from its sparse6_string is known to create a mistake on the current version of Sage. What do you think we could do besides that ?
Nathann
comment:6 follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 10 years ago by
the graph I create from its sparse6_string is known to create a mistake on the current version of Sage.
OK, this is fair enough. I'll give it a positive review as soon as it is marked as "needs review"
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
OK, this is fair enough. I'll give it a positive review as soon as it is marked as "needs review"
Then let it be ! :-)
Nathann
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by
Thanksssssss !! And many other thanks for the review of subgraph_search :-)
Nathann
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Dmitrii Pasechnik
comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.6.alpha2
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
I tried the loop included in this patch with 100 000 instead of 100, and it still works.... Sounds like we are safe on this side
:-)
Nathann