Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

#12068 closed enhancement (fixed)

Numerator for symbolic expression shouldn't use maxima

Reported by: hivert Owned by: hivert
Priority: major Milestone: sage-5.0
Component: symbolics Keywords: numerator, denominator
Cc: Merged in: sage-5.0.beta2
Authors: Florent Hivert, Burcin Erocal Reviewers: Burcin Erocal, Florent Hivert, Karl-Dieter Crisman
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Status badges

Description (last modified by kcrisman)

The code for numerator is currently

def numerator(self):
        """
        Returns the numerator of this symbolic expression.  If the
[...]
        """
        return self.parent()(self._maxima_().num())

Using Pynac should be much faster.

The patch wraps numer, denom, numer_denom and normal from GiNaC and fixes a bunch of wrong sphinx markup in expression.pyx.

Apply trac_12068-numer_denom_normal-ginac-fh.patch and trac_12068-reviewer.patch.

Attachments (6)

trac_12068-numer_denom_ginac-fh.patch (10.6 KB) - added by hivert 10 years ago.
trac_12068-denominator.patch (4.7 KB) - added by burcin 10 years ago.
trac_12068-numer_denom_fix-fh.patch (3.5 KB) - added by hivert 10 years ago.
trac_12068-numer_denom_ginac-folded-fh.patch (13.7 KB) - added by hivert 10 years ago.
trac_12068-numer_denom_normal-ginac-fh.patch (21.8 KB) - added by hivert 10 years ago.
trac_12068-reviewer.patch (776 bytes) - added by kcrisman 10 years ago.
reviewer patch

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (22)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by hivert

  • Authors set to Florent Hivert
  • Owner changed from burcin to hivert

Ginac's behavior is not the same has Maxima: given 1 + 1/(x + 1)

  • Maxima returns 1 + 1/(x + 1) as numerator and 1 as denominator;
  • Ginac returns x + 2 as numerator and x + 1 as denominator.

I think both are useful. My patch keeps the current behavior. Is this what we want ?

Florent

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by hivert

  • Status changed from new to needs_review

comment:3 follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by burcin

  • Reviewers set to Burcin Erocal
  • Summary changed from Numerator for symbolic expression should'nt use maxima to Numerator for symbolic expression shouldn't use maxima

Looks good to me. It would be better to use elif in line 6480 and 6481. Otherwise, positive review once the tests pass.

Thank you for working on this.

Changed 10 years ago by hivert

comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 Changed 10 years ago by hivert

Replying to burcin:

Looks good to me. It would be better to use elif in line 6480 and 6481. Otherwise, positive review once the tests pass.

Done !

comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by hivert

I got a all test passed on my laptop except a timeout in sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py however relaunching a non parallel test on this single file gives:

sage -t  "sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py"
         [89.8 s]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All tests passed!
Total time for all tests: 89.8 seconds

Changed 10 years ago by burcin

comment:6 follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by burcin

  • Authors changed from Florent Hivert to Florent Hivert, Burcin Erocal
  • Description modified (diff)

Declaring py_pow as an int caused problems with attachment:trac_12068-numer_denom_ginac-fh.patch. py_object_from_numeric() returns a PyObject. Assigning the return value to an int worked because Cython was creating a temporary PyObject and trying to convert that to an int. This failed if the exponent was not an integer.

attachment:trac_12068-denominator.patch fixes this problem and handles expressions which contain only a power.

Florent can you review my patch?

Apply attachment:trac_12068-numer_denom_ginac-fh.patch, attachment:trac_12068-denominator.patch

comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 10 years ago by hivert

Replying to burcin:

Florent can you review my patch?

Thanks for fixing my mistake. Unfortunately, because I choose to duplicate the code to speedup numerator_denominator, I also duplicate the mistake. You corrected only one. I'll upload a patch fixing everything.

Changed 10 years ago by hivert

comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by hivert

  • Description modified (diff)

Hi Burcin,

The uploaded patch should fix everything. attachment:trac_12068-numer_denom_fix-fh.patch contains my modifications on top of yours and attachment:trac_12068-numer_denom_ginac-folded-fh.patch contains everything folded.

Your turn to review ;-)

comment:9 follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by burcin

  • Reviewers changed from Burcin Erocal to Burcin Erocal, Florent Hivert
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

It all looks good. The declaration cdef int py_pow is redundant in numerator_denominator(), but I'll switch to positive review anyway.

comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 10 years ago by hivert

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

Bi Burcin,

Replying to burcin:

It all looks good. The declaration cdef int py_pow is redundant in numerator_denominator(), but I'll switch to positive review anyway.

The following diff

  • sage/symbolic/expression.pyx

    diff --git a/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx b/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
    a b cdef class Expression(CommutativeRingEle 
    18671867        assured that if True or False is returned (and proof is False) then
    18681868        the answer is correct.
    18691869
    1870         INPUT::
     1870        INPUT:
    18711871       
    18721872           ntests -- (default 20) the number of iterations to run
    18731873           domain -- (optional) the domain from which to draw the random values

broke the doc. So I had to fix my patch. Doing so I discovered a few more typos and fixed them once for all. In the process I ended up folding the patch for #12072.

So please re review. Sorry for the double review.

Florent

comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by hivert

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

Please re-review. Compared to my previous patch, I

  • wrapped normal;
  • removed the unused py_pow declaration;
  • fixed a bunch of doc typos.

Again sorry for the extra work,

Florent

comment:12 follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by kcrisman

  • Reviewers changed from Burcin Erocal, Florent Hivert to Burcin Erocal, Florent Hivert, Karl-Dieter Crisman
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

The changes to the previous patch seem fine, docs are good, tests pass. In fact, it's a very nice patch.

The only problem I spied is in the last hunk:

         - ``self`` -- the symbolic expression converting from 
         - ``target`` -- (default None) the symbolic expression

is too far indented. If you're going to fix all of this stuff, you might as well make these at the same indentation level as INPUT, such as in the second-to-last hunk.

In fact, I'm attaching a reviewer patch to fix this.

I wonder if there is a more 'obvious' name for normalize that could be an alias... anyway, not for this ticket. Assuming that Burcin has no objections, positive review other than this.

Changed 10 years ago by kcrisman

reviewer patch

comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 12 ; follow-up: Changed 10 years ago by hivert

Hi Karl-Dieter,

Replying to kcrisman:

The changes to the previous patch seem fine, docs are good, tests pass. In fact, it's a very nice patch.

Thanks !

The only problem I spied is in the last hunk:

         - ``self`` -- the symbolic expression converting from 
         - ``target`` -- (default None) the symbolic expression

is too far indented. If you're going to fix all of this stuff, you might as well make these at the same indentation level as INPUT, such as in the second-to-last hunk.

In fact, I'm attaching a reviewer patch to fix this.

Should't someone review your trivial reviewer patch before putting positive review ? Anyway, It is an obvious patch and I did review it. So I confirm your positive review.

I wonder if there is a more 'obvious' name for normalize that could be an alias... anyway, not for this ticket. Assuming that Burcin has no objections, positive review other than this.

In every CAS I used, I've always been confused by simplify, normal, combine... I guess Sage isn't an exception.

comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 14 Changed 10 years ago by kcrisman

In fact, I'm attaching a reviewer patch to fix this.

Should't someone review your trivial reviewer patch before putting positive review ? Anyway, It is an obvious patch and I did review it. So I confirm your positive review.

No, reviewers are usually allowed to make VERY trivial changes, esp. to fix doc, without 'formal' other review, otherwise we would take even longer to review things than normal. Naturally, anyone could decide that "reviewer patch X needs review" if they felt it was nontrivial.

comment:16 Changed 10 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Merged in set to sage-5.0.beta2
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.