Fix IsTransitive
to require that the group actually acts on the given domain (strictly speaking, the previous behavior was "as documented", but it made no sense and led to bugs elsewhere)
#4907
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
... in the case that the group does not act on the given domain
Text for release notes
Up to now,
IsTransitive( G, D )
did not require thatG
acts onD
.Thus
true
was returned also whenD
was a proper subset of aG
-orbit.From now on,
IsTransitive
returnstrue
only if the given domain is closed under theG
-action.The documentation has been changed accordingly.
Additionally, the documentation of several operations (
ActionHomomorphism
,Blocks
,MaximalBlocks
,RepresentativesMinimalBlocks
) has been extended by warnings that GAP assumes that the arguments really describe a group action.Further details
The old behaviour of
IsTransitive
was consistent with the old documentation,but other parts of GAP apparently assumed that a group that acts transitively on a domain really acts on this domain.
(For example
RankAction
shows an error message that the action must be transitive if the group does not act on the given domain.)There are related situations where GAP does not check whether the group in question really acts on the domain in question, see issue #4904.