ASKSAGE: Sage Q&A Forum - RSS feedhttps://ask.sagemath.org/questions/Q&A Forum for SageenCopyright Sage, 2010. Some rights reserved under creative commons license.Sun, 20 Oct 2013 05:00:31 +0200Generate Maximal subsets based on mutual/subset propertyhttps://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/Sorry for the imprecise language - I'm not a mathematician.
Given a list/set/dict/etc., is there a function/method available that will generate subsets, with the possibility of non-null intersections, based on some user defined mutual/subset property?
E.g., given a list [0,1,2,3,4,5], generate the maximal lists such that the maximum difference within each list is 3. For the given list, the function would produce [[0,1,2,3],[1,2,3,4],[2,3,4,5]]. For the list [0,3,9,10,17,30,33], this function would produce [[0,3],[9,10],[17],[30,33]].
This is different than the usual filtering operation in that the defining property is about the returned lists/sets/etc., not just about the individual elements.
Function should work with members of ZZ, QQ, RR, RDF, CC, CDF, and others if possible.Thu, 04 Jul 2013 04:54:17 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/Answer by tmonteil for <p>Sorry for the imprecise language - I'm not a mathematician.</p>
<p>Given a list/set/dict/etc., is there a function/method available that will generate subsets, with the possibility of non-null intersections, based on some user defined mutual/subset property?</p>
<p>E.g., given a list [0,1,2,3,4,5], generate the maximal lists such that the maximum difference within each list is 3. For the given list, the function would produce [[0,1,2,3],[1,2,3,4],[2,3,4,5]]. For the list [0,3,9,10,17,30,33], this function would produce [[0,3],[9,10],[17],[30,33]].</p>
<p>This is different than the usual filtering operation in that the defining property is about the returned lists/sets/etc., not just about the individual elements.</p>
<p>Function should work with members of ZZ, QQ, RR, RDF, CC, CDF, and others if possible.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?answer=15189#post-id-15189First, if your want to filter (non-necessary maximal) subsets with a condition that implies testing all subsets of your given set A, you can try something like:
sage: A = Set([0,1,2,3,4,5])
sage: B = Set(a for a in A.subsets() if len(a) != 0 and max(a) - min(a) <= 3)
Note that i had to exclude the empty set to be able to pick the minimal and the maximal element of the iterated subsets of A. Note that i hd to use a Sage `Set` and not a python `set` to be able to get its subsets.
Then, you could notice that your property is stable by subsets, so you have more than a set of subsets, you have a simplicial complex:
sage: SimplicialComplex(B)
Simplicial complex with vertex set (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and facets {(1, 2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 4, 5), (0, 1, 2, 3)}
From which you can get maximal faces:
sage: C = SimplicialComplex(B).maximal_faces() ; C
{(1, 2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 4, 5), (0, 1, 2, 3)}
In your second example, you get:
sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: B = Set(a for a in A.subsets() if len(a) != 0 and max(a) - min(a) <= 3)
sage: C = SimplicialComplex(B).maximal_faces() ; C
{(9, 10), (17,), (30, 33), (0, 3)}
Thu, 04 Jul 2013 05:51:13 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?answer=15189#post-id-15189Comment by rickhg12hs for <p>First, if your want to filter (non-necessary maximal) subsets with a condition that implies testing all subsets of your given set A, you can try something like:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,1,2,3,4,5])
sage: B = Set(a for a in A.subsets() if len(a) != 0 and max(a) - min(a) <= 3)
</code></pre>
<p>Note that i had to exclude the empty set to be able to pick the minimal and the maximal element of the iterated subsets of A. Note that i hd to use a Sage <code>Set</code> and not a python <code>set</code> to be able to get its subsets.</p>
<p>Then, you could notice that your property is stable by subsets, so you have more than a set of subsets, you have a simplicial complex:</p>
<pre><code>sage: SimplicialComplex(B)
Simplicial complex with vertex set (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and facets {(1, 2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 4, 5), (0, 1, 2, 3)}
</code></pre>
<p>From which you can get maximal faces:</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = SimplicialComplex(B).maximal_faces() ; C
{(1, 2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 4, 5), (0, 1, 2, 3)}
</code></pre>
<p>In your second example, you get:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: B = Set(a for a in A.subsets() if len(a) != 0 and max(a) - min(a) <= 3)
sage: C = SimplicialComplex(B).maximal_faces() ; C
{(9, 10), (17,), (30, 33), (0, 3)}
</code></pre>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17339#post-id-17339Selecting this as the best answer for the examples given, mostly for its relative simplicity. Thanks!Sun, 07 Jul 2013 22:52:40 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17339#post-id-17339Comment by rickhg12hs for <p>First, if your want to filter (non-necessary maximal) subsets with a condition that implies testing all subsets of your given set A, you can try something like:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,1,2,3,4,5])
sage: B = Set(a for a in A.subsets() if len(a) != 0 and max(a) - min(a) <= 3)
</code></pre>
<p>Note that i had to exclude the empty set to be able to pick the minimal and the maximal element of the iterated subsets of A. Note that i hd to use a Sage <code>Set</code> and not a python <code>set</code> to be able to get its subsets.</p>
<p>Then, you could notice that your property is stable by subsets, so you have more than a set of subsets, you have a simplicial complex:</p>
<pre><code>sage: SimplicialComplex(B)
Simplicial complex with vertex set (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and facets {(1, 2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 4, 5), (0, 1, 2, 3)}
</code></pre>
<p>From which you can get maximal faces:</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = SimplicialComplex(B).maximal_faces() ; C
{(1, 2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 4, 5), (0, 1, 2, 3)}
</code></pre>
<p>In your second example, you get:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: B = Set(a for a in A.subsets() if len(a) != 0 and max(a) - min(a) <= 3)
sage: C = SimplicialComplex(B).maximal_faces() ; C
{(9, 10), (17,), (30, 33), (0, 3)}
</code></pre>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17367#post-id-17367This also works with RDF members of set A. Important to me.Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:34:12 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17367#post-id-17367Comment by rickhg12hs for <p>First, if your want to filter (non-necessary maximal) subsets with a condition that implies testing all subsets of your given set A, you can try something like:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,1,2,3,4,5])
sage: B = Set(a for a in A.subsets() if len(a) != 0 and max(a) - min(a) <= 3)
</code></pre>
<p>Note that i had to exclude the empty set to be able to pick the minimal and the maximal element of the iterated subsets of A. Note that i hd to use a Sage <code>Set</code> and not a python <code>set</code> to be able to get its subsets.</p>
<p>Then, you could notice that your property is stable by subsets, so you have more than a set of subsets, you have a simplicial complex:</p>
<pre><code>sage: SimplicialComplex(B)
Simplicial complex with vertex set (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and facets {(1, 2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 4, 5), (0, 1, 2, 3)}
</code></pre>
<p>From which you can get maximal faces:</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = SimplicialComplex(B).maximal_faces() ; C
{(1, 2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 4, 5), (0, 1, 2, 3)}
</code></pre>
<p>In your second example, you get:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: B = Set(a for a in A.subsets() if len(a) != 0 and max(a) - min(a) <= 3)
sage: C = SimplicialComplex(B).maximal_faces() ; C
{(9, 10), (17,), (30, 33), (0, 3)}
</code></pre>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=16908#post-id-16908Changed my mind about preferred solution after doing some performance testing. Determining maximal cliques seems to be *** orders of magnitude *** faster.Sun, 20 Oct 2013 05:00:31 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=16908#post-id-16908Answer by tmonteil for <p>Sorry for the imprecise language - I'm not a mathematician.</p>
<p>Given a list/set/dict/etc., is there a function/method available that will generate subsets, with the possibility of non-null intersections, based on some user defined mutual/subset property?</p>
<p>E.g., given a list [0,1,2,3,4,5], generate the maximal lists such that the maximum difference within each list is 3. For the given list, the function would produce [[0,1,2,3],[1,2,3,4],[2,3,4,5]]. For the list [0,3,9,10,17,30,33], this function would produce [[0,3],[9,10],[17],[30,33]].</p>
<p>This is different than the usual filtering operation in that the defining property is about the returned lists/sets/etc., not just about the individual elements.</p>
<p>Function should work with members of ZZ, QQ, RR, RDF, CC, CDF, and others if possible.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?answer=15190#post-id-15190You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:
sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:
sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !
To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".
----
----
**EDIT :** This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and [trac ticket 14853](http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853)). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.
sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
Then,
sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
----
----
**EDIT :** The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in `RDF`.
Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:18:10 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?answer=15190#post-id-15190Comment by rickhg12hs for <p>You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:</p>
<pre><code>sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
</code></pre>
<p>I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !</p>
<p>To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".</p>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and <a href="http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853">trac ticket 14853</a>). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>Then,</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
</code></pre>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in <code>RDF</code>.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17364#post-id-17364Sorry, should have been more explicit. Try: `A=Set([RDF.random_element(min=0,max=10) for k in range(10)])`Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:44:41 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17364#post-id-17364Comment by tmonteil for <p>You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:</p>
<pre><code>sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
</code></pre>
<p>I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !</p>
<p>To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".</p>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and <a href="http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853">trac ticket 14853</a>). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>Then,</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
</code></pre>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in <code>RDF</code>.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17361#post-id-17361You got an e-mail too ;)Thu, 04 Jul 2013 07:07:12 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17361#post-id-17361Comment by rickhg12hs for <p>You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:</p>
<pre><code>sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
</code></pre>
<p>I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !</p>
<p>To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".</p>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and <a href="http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853">trac ticket 14853</a>). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>Then,</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
</code></pre>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in <code>RDF</code>.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17358#post-id-17358Thanks @tmonteil for your answers and filing the trac ticket. I'll need to play with both methods to assess which works better for me. Both are interesting and new to me ... and will be useful as well.
Regarding the trac ticket title "RDF vertices of a graph are transformed into consecutive integers", aren't the vertices actually the integer truncations of the RDF's?Thu, 04 Jul 2013 19:09:53 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17358#post-id-17358Comment by tmonteil for <p>You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:</p>
<pre><code>sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
</code></pre>
<p>I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !</p>
<p>To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".</p>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and <a href="http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853">trac ticket 14853</a>). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>Then,</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
</code></pre>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in <code>RDF</code>.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17360#post-id-17360This is now [trac ticket 14853](http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853).Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:08:24 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17360#post-id-17360Comment by rickhg12hs for <p>You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:</p>
<pre><code>sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
</code></pre>
<p>I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !</p>
<p>To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".</p>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and <a href="http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853">trac ticket 14853</a>). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>Then,</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
</code></pre>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in <code>RDF</code>.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17366#post-id-17366This does not seem to work with RDF members of Set A.Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:34:49 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17366#post-id-17366Comment by tmonteil for <p>You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:</p>
<pre><code>sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
</code></pre>
<p>I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !</p>
<p>To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".</p>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and <a href="http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853">trac ticket 14853</a>). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>Then,</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
</code></pre>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in <code>RDF</code>.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17350#post-id-17350It seems indeed that the vertices are replaced by they integer parts (which implies merging some vertices).Fri, 05 Jul 2013 14:06:36 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17350#post-id-17350Comment by rickhg12hs for <p>You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:</p>
<pre><code>sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
</code></pre>
<p>I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !</p>
<p>To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".</p>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and <a href="http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853">trac ticket 14853</a>). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>Then,</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
</code></pre>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in <code>RDF</code>.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=16909#post-id-16909After some preliminary testing, this algorithm is *** orders of magnitude *** faster than determining the maximal faces of the Simplical Complex.Sun, 20 Oct 2013 04:58:26 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=16909#post-id-16909Comment by Nathann for <p>You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:</p>
<pre><code>sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
</code></pre>
<p>I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !</p>
<p>To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".</p>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and <a href="http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853">trac ticket 14853</a>). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>Then,</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
</code></pre>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in <code>RDF</code>.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17362#post-id-173621) That's clearly a bug 2) I have no idea where it comes from, but probably from Robert Miller's attempt to avoid label if it is possible 3) I have no way to receive emails when comments are added to a question on ASK Sage (I never received any mail from AskSage in general) so asking me questions there is bound to fail :-PThu, 04 Jul 2013 07:02:05 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17362#post-id-17362Comment by tmonteil for <p>You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:</p>
<pre><code>sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
</code></pre>
<p>I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !</p>
<p>To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".</p>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and <a href="http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853">trac ticket 14853</a>). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>Then,</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
</code></pre>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in <code>RDF</code>.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17363#post-id-17363Oh! You are right, there seems to be a problem in the construction of graphs:
sage: A=Set([RDF.random_element(min=0,max=10) for k in range(10)]) ; A
{6.42320967152, 1.77698693175, 2.95922392964, 9.50745089775, 4.60546838289, 3.67300191731, 5.21254750195, 5.90579400282, 7.55309974188, 0.442799267782}
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: G.vertices()
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]
Nathann i am lost, could you explain that behaviour (and help us with a workaround) ?
Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:56:25 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17363#post-id-17363Comment by tmonteil for <p>You can also notice that your property defining the set B is a property that is tested on pairs of elements of A. Hence, you can construct the graph corresponding to admissible pairs:</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([0,3,9,10,17,30,33])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>What you are looking for is the set of maximal cliques of G:</p>
<pre><code>sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10], [17], [33, 30]]
</code></pre>
<p>I let you benchmark between the two methods and tell us which is better in which cases !</p>
<p>To understand the link between the cliques of the graph G and the simplicial complex C in my previous answer, you can read about "Rips complex".</p>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> This method works, but there is a Sage bug when the set is made of RDF elements (see the following discussion and <a href="http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14853">trac ticket 14853</a>). Here is a dirty workaround until the bug is fixed: we replace a RDF element by a tuple made of a single RDF element.</p>
<pre><code>sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: Atuple = map(lambda x:(x,), A)
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(Atuple)
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(Atuple, Atuple):
....: if u != v and max(u[0],v[0]) - min(u[0],v[0]) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
</code></pre>
<p>Then,</p>
<pre><code>sage: C = [[c[0] for c in clique] for clique in G.cliques_maximal()] ; C
[[0.0, 3.0], [9.0, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
</code></pre>
<hr/>
<hr/>
<p><strong>EDIT :</strong> The bug has been fixed in sage 5.12, so you can now use this method as well without having to use the workaround, even with vertices in <code>RDF</code>.</p>
https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17365#post-id-17365It seems to work for me with RDF entries:
sage: A = Set([RDF(0),RDF(3),RDF(9),RDF(10),RDF(17),RDF(30),RDF(33)])
sage: G = Graph()
sage: G.add_vertices(A)
sage: G
Graph on 7 vertices
sage: G.vertices()
[0, 3, 9, 10.0, 17.0, 30.0, 33.0]
sage: for u,v in CartesianProduct(A,A):
....: if u != v and max(u,v) - min(u,v) <=3:
....: G.add_edge(u,v)
....:
sage: G.cliques_maximal()
[[0, 3], [9, 10.0], [17.0], [33.0, 30.0]]
Could you give an example where it fails ?Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:42:45 +0200https://ask.sagemath.org/question/10316/generate-maximal-subsets-based-on-mutualsubset-property/?comment=17365#post-id-17365