#11869 closed defect (fixed)
Horrible bug in number field conversion
Reported by: | jdemeyer | Owned by: | davidloeffler |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-4.8 |
Component: | number fields | Keywords: | coercion |
Cc: | SimonKing | Merged in: | sage-4.8.alpha0 |
Authors: | Jeroen Demeyer | Reviewers: | Marco Streng |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | #11873, #11876 | Stopgaps: |
Description
---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Sage Version 4.7.1, Release Date: 2011-08-11 | | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- sage: K.<a> = NumberField(x^3+x+1) sage: L.<b> = NumberField(x^3+2*x+2) sage: K(b) a
Attachments (1)
Change History (30)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
- Dependencies set to #11870
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to p-adic embeddings, problems with #11873
comment:6 follow-up: ↓ 8 Changed 10 years ago by
From the patch:
If the number fields ``x.parent()`` and ``self`` have an embedding in the same field, then those embeddings are used to determine the correct conversion. If no such compatible embeddings are given, then some possible conversion of ``x`` into ``self`` is given. This means a non-canonical element of ``self`` with the same minimal polynomial as ``x``.
Is that second bit absolutely necessary? I think this is horrible. Throwing an error would be much preferable. With this, it would be possible to have two fields K and L, elements a,b in K and have
L(a+b)
not equal to L(a)+L(b)
. That looks like something that is going to be a perpetual source of problems and hard-to-find bugs.
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #11870 to #11873
- Work issues changed from p-adic embeddings, problems with #11873 to more examples
comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to nbruin:
Is that second bit absolutely necessary? I think this is horrible. Throwing an error would be much preferable. With this, it would be possible to have two fields K and L, elements a,b in K and have
L(a+b)
not equal toL(a)+L(b)
. That looks like something that is going to be a perpetual source of problems and hard-to-find bugs.
All this should be fixed now.
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
- Work issues more examples deleted
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
sage: K.<a> = NumberField(x^2-5) sage: L, phi = K.subfield(-a) sage: phi(L.gen()) -a sage: K(L.gen()) a
Of course the second one must equal the first one or raise an error.
comment:11 follow-ups: ↓ 12 ↓ 13 Changed 10 years ago by
In the case of my example above, there is a preferred embedding of L into K, but your patch does not find it.
In general, even if there really is no preferred embedding of L into K, then just choosing one will still lead to trouble, as you'll get non-commuting diagrams of embeddings. Instead of just choosing an embedding, I strongly think you must raise an error (but other people may say warning, as David did on sage-nt). This could be discussed on the mailing list.
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 11 ; follow-up: ↓ 14 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to mstreng:
In general, even if there really is no preferred embedding of L into K, then just choosing one will still lead to trouble, as you'll get non-commuting diagrams of embeddings.
So may I paraphrase your proposal as follows:
If the element x to be converted is not in QQ
and the fields have no compatible embeddings, then raise ValueError
?
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
So may I paraphrase your proposal as follows: If the element x to be converted is not in
raise ValueError
?
Yes.
comment:15 Changed 10 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #11873 to #11873, #11876
comment:16 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Done (raising TypeError
if no embeddings are found). For subfields, it needs the patch from #11876.
comment:17 Changed 10 years ago by
Thanks, I hope to look at the patch soon.
In the mean time: maybe the message "TypeError?: No compatible embedding found for conversion" becomes clearer if you add the word "natural" or "preferred", and perhaps add the fields to the message, i.e., append "from %s to %s" % (....)
comment:18 Changed 10 years ago by
Done, error message changed.
comment:19 Changed 10 years ago by
There is one doctest error:
sage -t -long "devel/sage/sage/rings/residue_field.pyx" ********************************************************************** File "/usr/local/src/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage/sage/rings/residue_field.pyx", line 522: sage: RL(OK.1) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/src/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/usr/local/src/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/usr/local/src/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_5[22]>", line 1, in <module> RL(OK.gen(1))###line 522: sage: RL(OK.1) File "parent.pyx", line 941, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (sage/structure/parent.c:7102) File "coerce_maps.pyx", line 82, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:3254) File "coerce_maps.pyx", line 77, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:3157) File "residue_field.pyx", line 1360, in sage.rings.residue_field.ResidueFiniteField_prime_modn._element_constructor_ (sage/rings/residue_field.c:11389) File "residue_field.pyx", line 545, in sage.rings.residue_field.ResidueField_generic._element_constructor_ (sage/rings/residue_field.c:6293) TypeError: cannot coerce <type 'sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.OrderElement_absolute'> **********************************************************************
comment:20 Changed 10 years ago by
I simply removed the failing test because it makes assumptions which are no longer valid. Also, the result of the test is mathematically anyway.
comment:21 Changed 10 years ago by
- Cc SimonKing added
I recall some discussion on sage-nt going into that example (introduced in #8800 together with the "Horrible bug"). I'm CC'ing its author.
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:22 follow-up: ↓ 23 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
I am a bit confused: In the keywords, you name it "coercion". But in your example, you just talk about conversion. If it really is a coercion (please check: Does that conversion happens implicitly?) then I agree it is a bug.
Otherwise, I'd say that a conversion that is not a coercion is allowed to do arbitrary nasty stuff (such as ZZ(GF(2)(1))
returning the integer 1).
comment:23 in reply to: ↑ 22 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
I am a bit confused: In the keywords, you name it "coercion". But in your example, you just talk about conversion. If it really is a coercion (please check: Does that conversion happens implicitly?) then I agree it is a bug.
It certainly used to be a stupid "conversion".
My patch actually implements something which is much closer to coercion. Essentially, it is coercion on subfields of the given number fields. Suppose I have two number fields L1
and L2
sharing a common subfield K
. Even if there is no coercion map from L1
to L2
, there is a coercion between the subfields K
of L1
and K
of L2
.
comment:24 Changed 10 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Marco Streng
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
I'm satisfied with the patch, and all tests pass. In the sage-nt discussion, it seems that most number field users want to disallow senseless conversions. And all the time-consuming computation happens after the point where I would have given up with an Error. So I'd like to give this a positive review.
comment:25 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:26 Changed 10 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.7.2 to sage-4.7.3
comment:27 Changed 10 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.7.3.alpha0
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:29 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in changed from sage-4.7.3.alpha0 to sage-4.8.alpha0
- Milestone set to sage-4.8
I am working on a patch...