-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 481
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Two algorithms for k-charge do not give same answer #15444
Comments
comment:1
Proposition 3.15 on p. 84 of our book states that the k-charge with the two algorithms are equal. Am I correct to assume that since you opened a ticket that the error is in the algorithm and not in that proposition? To clarify
|
comment:2
Yes, I think the implementation that Avi and Nate did is not quite correct. If you look at the second standard subword of your example above, then the program computes the height of the restricted subword incorrectly for the letter r=3. |
Commit: |
Branch: public/combinat/k-charge-15444 |
New commits:
|
Author: Anne Schilling |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:5
I ran the following code for k=3 and 4 and now the two implementations seem to agree:
|
comment:6
Looks good to me. I tested it on much larger examples and everything seems to be correct now. Thanks for fixing it. |
comment:7
Thank you for the swift review! Anne |
Reviewer: Mike Zabrocki |
Currently, the two implementations of k-charge do not give the same answer:
Comparing against the expansion of Hall-Littlewood symmetric functions in terms of k-Schur functions, it seems that the I-implementation is correct
Compared to the book http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3569 pg. 84
the bug seems to be in the method _height_of_restricted_subword in k_tableau.py.
CC: @sagetrac-sage-combinat @zabrocki
Component: combinatorics
Keywords: tableaux, charge
Author: Anne Schilling
Branch/Commit: public/combinat/k-charge-15444 @
8df6474
Reviewer: Mike Zabrocki
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15444
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: