Fix AutomorphismGroup for CompleteBipartiteDigraph(1,n)
#852
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
wilfwilson
changed the title
AutomorphismGroup for CompleteBipartiteDigraph(1, n)AutomorphismGroup for CompleteBipartiteDigraph(1,n)
Simply put, our code was assuming that for `DirectProduct(SymmetricGroup([1]), SymmetricGroup([2..6]))`, GAP would return `SymmetricGroup([2..6])`. But in fact, GAP returns (the isomorphic, but not identical) `SymmetricGroup([1..5])`. Resolves digraphs#850
wilfwilson
force-pushed
the
fix-issue-850
branch
from
bce2677 to
5e5594c
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This resolves the following bug:
Simply put, our code was assuming that for
DirectProduct(SymmetricGroup([1]), SymmetricGroup([2..6])), GAP would returnSymmetricGroup([2..6]). But in fact, GAP returns (the isomorphic, but not identical)SymmetricGroup([1..5]).This bug is what was behind the wrong result reported by @bojankuzma000 in #850.