Meta-ticket: Polyhedron: new features and known bugs

[jplab]

This meta-ticket collects tickets which are related to implementing new properties and features of polytopes.

• Make CombinatorialPolyhedron a base class for polyhedra/lattice polytopes/cones #10777: Make CombinatorialPolyhedron a base class for polyhedra/lattice polytopes/cones
• Implement polyhedron unfolding (i.e net) for 3-polytopes #11564: Implement polyhedron unfolding (i.e net)
• Coercion/conversion from Cone and other objects to Polyhedron #14222: Various little enhancements for Polyhedrons
• support for polygons (2D polyhedra) #15235: support for polygons (2D polyhedra)
• document Polyhedron defined over number field #17197: document Polyhedron defined over number field
• Bug in lattice_polytope.positive_integer_relations #19365: Bug in lattice_polytope.positive_integer_relations
• Compute fundamental domain for symmetry groups of polyhedra #20278: Compute fundamental domain for symmetry groups of polyhedra
• generating function of integral points of polyhedra #22067: generating function of integral points of polyhedra
• Implement Minkowski decomposition of polytopes #22181: Implement Minkowski decomposition of polytopes
• Add plots to the thematic tutorial on drawing polytopes with tikz #22506: Add plots to the thematic tutorial on drawing polytopes with tikz
• LattE is sometimes not happy with V representation #23556: bug in LattE
• get Koebe polyhedron from graph #24637: get Koebe polyhedron from graph
• Cannot plot Cone that is a halfplane in 2d #25114: Cannot plot Cone that is a halfplane in 2d
• Construct RationalPolyhedralFan from possibly overlapping cones #25122: Construct RationalPolyhedralFan from possibly overlapping cones
• Add thematic tutorial to the polymake interface, based on polymake tutorials #26357: Add thematic tutorial to the polymake interface, based on polymake tutorials
• Polyhedron constructors: minimal vs. non-minimal input representations; input both Vrep and Hrep #26366: Polyhedron - lazy backend; minimal vs. non-minimal presentations; Polyhedron constructor with both Vrep, Hrep
• Setting up a Polyhedron from both Vrep and Hrep - for backend='polymake' #26368: Setting up a Polyhedron from both Vrep and Hrep - for backend='polymake'
• approximate volume of polytopes #27056: approximate volume of polytopes
• CombinatorialPolyhedron: Check input on errors. #27087: CombinatorialPolyhedron: Check input on errors
• Enable SIMD-instructions for Bitsets #27103: Further improve CombinatorialPolyhedron: Enable SIMD-instructions
• integration over polyhedron with induced measure #27365: integration over polyhedron with induced measure
• Polyhedron.affine_hull: more output options #27366: Polyhedron.affine_hull: more output options
• integrate over polyhedron when function contains a log #27447: integrate over polyhedron when function contains a log
• Compute normal vector of facet of polyhedron #27448: compute normal vectors of surface faces of polyhedron
• Equivariant Ehrhart Theory #27637: Equivariant Ehrhart Theory
• Non-rational polytopes: Examples and constructor #27728: Non-rational polytopes: Examples and constructor
• Make pynormaliz a Feature #27744: Make pynormaliz a Feature
• Thematic Tutorial on algebraic polytopes in Sage using Normaliz #28230: Thematic Tutorial on algebraic polytopes in Sage using Normaliz
• Bug with Polyhedron plot when too many plots #28468: Bug with Polyhedron plot when too many plots
• RecursionError and AssertionError with regular_polygon #28599: RecursionError and AssertionError with regular_polygon
• Comparing Latte Integrale and Normaliz for Ehrhart polynomial computation #28634: Comparing Latte Integrale and Normaliz for Ehrhart polynomial computation
• Coercion between algebraic polyhedra fails #28776: Coercion between algebraic polyhedra fails

See also:

• Meta-ticket: Polytopes, lattice (integer) point counting / enumeration, and their applications #20875: Meta-ticket: Polytopes, lattice (integer) point counting / enumeration, and their applications
• Meta-ticket: polymake #22710: Meta-ticket: polymake
• Meta-ticket: expose all normaliz features #22827: Meta-ticket: expose all normaliz features
• #Meta-ticket: Vector spaces and algebras of polyhedra #29799: Meta-ticket: Vector spaces and algebras of polyhedra
• Transition of combinatorial computations of Polyhedron to Combinatorial Type #27063: Task: Transition of combinatorial computations of Polyhedron to Combinatorial Type
• Meta-ticket: Parallel f-vector for polyhedra #28893 Task: Parallel f-vector for polyhedra
• Polytopal constructions for combinatorial polyhedra #29191 Task: Polytopal constructions for combinatorial polyhedra
• Meta-ticket: Set up polyhedra with both Vrep and Hrep #29199 Task: Set up polyhedra with both Vrep and Hrep
• https://trac.sagemath.org/wiki/SagePolyhedralGeometry: Roadmap for Optimization and Polyhedral Geometry softwares interactions in Sage

CC: @mo271 @mkoeppe @vbraun @stumpc5 @jplab @fchapoton @videlec

Component: geometry

Keywords: polytope, days84

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22420

[jplab]

Changed keywords from polytope to polytope, days84

[sagetrac-tmonteil]

comment:2

Sould this be merged in #20875 ?

[jplab]

comment:3

Replying to @sagetrac-tmonteil:

Sould this be merged in #20875 ?

Hmm. At the beginning, I listed some tickets there, this is true. Then, after looking at the description of #20875, I thought that the tickets I put were not directly in the description.

I planned to extend this list and to limit it to new methods implementations.

No big opinion, I simply thought to make this ticket a specific meta-ticket.

[novoselt]

comment:6

I've made some improvements to lattice polytopes recently, e.g. #22309 if you care to include it here as well.

[jplab]

comment:7

Replying to @novoselt:

I've made some improvements to lattice polytopes recently, e.g. #22309 if you care to include it here as well.

Great! Thanks for the pointer!

[novoselt]

comment:8

Added 3 more tickets, a bunch of other optimizations and clean ups is almost ready but may take me a couple weeks to polish and post.

[novoselt]

comment:9

Managed polishing today and will stop until some kind reviewer will take a look, sorry for hijacking the ticket - I just now noticed that it is about new features ;-)

[jplab]

comment:10

Replying to @novoselt:

Managed polishing today and will stop until some kind reviewer will take a look, sorry for hijacking the ticket - I just now noticed that it is about new features ;-)

Don't worry it is good to keep track of open tickets!

[jplab]

comment:149

Cleaned some 9.1 tickets.

[kliem]

comment:150

Thanks for cleaning.

[mkoeppe]

comment:164

Would someone be interested in writing a high-level section on polyhedral stuff for https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.1?

[kliem]

comment:166

Replying to @mkoeppe:

Would someone be interested in writing a high-level section on polyhedral stuff for https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.1?

I did that. Anyone revision or improvement is welcome.

[jplab]

comment:167

Replying to @mkoeppe:

Would someone be interested in writing a high-level section on polyhedral stuff for https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.1?

Very good revival (there used to be longer release notes... centuries ago)!

I'll have a look at what Jonathan did and add a few things. Perhaps it would be worth doing it for 9.0, for the sake of completeness and encouragement for people to do it too!

[mkoeppe]

comment:168

Replying to @kliem:

Replying to @mkoeppe:

Would someone be interested in writing a high-level section on polyhedral stuff for https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.1?

I did that. Anyone revision or improvement is welcome.

Thanks very much! Looking great.

[mkoeppe]

comment:169

Replying to @jplab:

Perhaps it would be worth doing it for 9.0, for the sake of completeness and encouragement for people to do it too!

Yes, I think this would be valuable too.

[kliem]

comment:170

Done. As before revision and/or improvements are welcome. Now the release note for 9.0 are almost only about polyhedral geometry, but at least they don't look as sad anymore. And maybe people get the idea that if there are that many changes just in polyhedral geometry than a lot of work has been done.

Replying to @mkoeppe:

Replying to @jplab:

Perhaps it would be worth doing it for 9.0, for the sake of completeness and encouragement for people to do it too!

Yes, I think this would be valuable too.