Ticket #2804 (closed defect: fixed)
[patch proposed, positive review to fix] ssmod.py failure
| Reported by: | gfurnish | Owned by: | cpernet |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | blocker | Milestone: | sage-3.0 |
| Component: | doctest coverage | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Work issues: | ||
| Report Upstream: | Reviewers: | ||
| Authors: | Merged in: | ||
| Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
sage -t devel/sage/sage/modular/ssmod/ssmod.py **********************************************************************
File "/home/x/build/sage-3.0.alpha1/tmp/ssmod.py", line 14:
sage: D[:3]
Expected:
[
(Vector space of degree 33 and dimension 1 over Finite Field of size 97
Basis matrix:
[ 0 0 0 1 96 96 1 96 96 0 2 96 96 0 1 0 1 2 95 0 1 1 0 1 0 95 0 96 95 1 96 0 2], True),
(Vector space of degree 33 and dimension 1 over Finite Field of size 97
Basis matrix:
[ 0 1 96 75 16 81 22 17 17 0 0 80 80 1 16 40 74 0 0 96 81 23 57 74 0 0 0 24 0 23 73 0 0], True),
(Vector space of degree 33 and dimension 1 over Finite Field of size 97
Basis matrix:
[ 0 1 96 90 90 7 7 6 91 0 0 91 6 13 7 0 91 0 0 84 90 6 0 6 0 0 0 90 0 91 7 0 0], True)
]
Got:
[
(Vector space of degree 33 and dimension 0 over Finite Field of size 97
Basis matrix:
[], True),
(Sparse vector space of degree 33 and dimension 6 over Finite Field of size 97
Basis matrix:
[ 1 0 0 0 0 0 42 22 77 61 8 76 27 95 75 81 24 22 61 78 3 95 44 26 63 31 47 61 67 24 26 49 91]
[ 0 1 0 0 0 0 63 79 96 61 54 21 37 39 70 51 3 68 91 54 33 20 61 96 72 23 62 45 87 24 66 31 88]
[ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 19 95 33 67 91 19 0 29 78 70 37 48 72 37 62 45 72 40 57 46 95 29 50 30 6 17]
[ 0 0 0 1 0 0 20 57 50 17 95 67 2 88 67 57 1 41 84 44 90 96 31 34 3 46 13 52 96 94 62 77 94]
[ 0 0 0 0 1 0 50 6 38 38 50 31 23 32 68 45 26 9 66 6 51 31 50 53 17 29 89 53 70 24 44 27 30]
[ 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 8 77 51 41 25 7 63 75 2 86 20 23 0 29 77 13 26 45 10 38 41 66 68 40 49 15], True),
(Sparse vector space of degree 33 and dimension 8 over Finite Field of size 97
Basis matrix:
[ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 48 44 88 8 82 60 13 35 15 74 59 18 78 42 16 12 91 13 8 19 28 41 48 31]
[ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 78 55 39 17 91 90 29 85 89 3 53 15 47 8 25 79 40 82 79 24 33 45 29 70]
[ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 69 74 21 95 41 9 80 89 6 33 17 23 94 73 65 65 61 91 77 48 32 42 4 23 46]
[ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 43 36 6 41 4 80 73 63 38 94 33 94 71 62 93 41 83 90 21 58 57 94 79 4 88]
[ 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 87 26 91 28 67 79 78 79 62 75 25 73 24 92 5 69 17 5 67 41 65 5 0 87 57]
[ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 37 8 88 0 56 62 67 80 82 5 62 38 64 5 14 52 64 77 77 51 79 57 34 67 6]
[ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 46 1 43 61 76 30 91 96 77 15 43 37 90 84 70 68 24 84 34 85 46 13 10 65 9]
[ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 78 41 40 60 52 57 13 88 90 96 29 78 95 77 16 69 72 13 85 8 3 40 19 20 53], True)
]
**********************************************************************
File "/home/x/build/sage-3.0.alpha1/tmp/ssmod.py", line 26:
sage: len(D)
Expected:
9
Got:
4
This is a heisenbug. It works some of the time. It also sometimes spits out "itere dependant intercale" at random. Test machine is a 64 bit gentoo install with 4.2.3 gcc
Attachments
Change History
comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by gfurnish
- Owner changed from was to failure
- Component changed from modular forms to doctest
Changed 5 years ago by cpernet
-
attachment
2804.patch
added
trivial patch to revert to LUK charpoly method
comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by cpernet
- Owner changed from failure to cpernet
- Summary changed from ssmod.py failure to [patch and new spkg proposed, need review] ssmod.py failure
I reverted the default LinBox? method to LUK which is a slower on large matrices but much safer. This fix is temporary waiting, for me to investigate the real bug in the ArithProg? method. I put an updated spkg at http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/tabbott/linbox-1.1.5p1.spkg
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by cpernet
Sorry I messed up the address: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/pernet/linbox-1.1.5p1.spkg
comment:4 follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 5 years ago by gfurnish
Changing the method to LUK does indeed fix the failure, although it is important to note that 2804.patch is messed up and doesn't do this at all.
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed 5 years ago by mabshoff
Replying to gfurnish:
Changing the method to LUK does indeed fix the failure, although it is important to note that 2804.patch is messed up and doesn't do this at all.
I will check out the updated LinBox?.spkg and make sure it has the right fix in it. Otherwise I will apply the patch manually.
Cheers,
Michael
