Opened 7 years ago
Closed 5 years ago
#13101 closed defect (fixed)
enumerate_totallyreal_fields bug fix
Reported by: | jvoight | Owned by: | davidloeffler |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-6.1 |
Component: | number fields | Keywords: | sd51 |
Cc: | Merged in: | ||
Authors: | Robert Harron, John Voight, Frédéric Chapoton | Reviewers: | Alex Ghitza, Peter Bruin |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | u/vbraun/enumerate_totallyreal (Commits) | Commit: | 3923f3ad585170c563a4ba7f4d3edbe1c6356f96 |
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
sage: enumerate_totallyreal_fields_all(8, 10^8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IndexError Traceback (most recent call last) /home/jvoight/sage-4.2/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/<ipython console> in <module>() /usr/local/share/sage-5.0/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.pyc in enumerate_totallyreal_fields_all(n, B, verbose, return_seqs) 887 print "Taking F =", Sds[i][1] 888 F = NumberField(ZZx(Sds[i][1]), 't') --> 889 T = enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel(F, n/d, B, verbose=verbose, return_seqs=return_seqs) 890 if return_seqs: 891 for i in range(3): /usr/local/share/sage-5.0/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.pyc in enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel(F, m, B, a, verbose, return_seqs) 726 T.incr(f_out,verbose) 727 else: --> 728 T.incr(f_out) 729 730 Fx = PolynomialRing(F, 'xF') /usr/local/share/sage-5.0/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_rel.pyc in incr(self, f_out, verbose, haltk) 542 # New bounds from Lagrange multiplier in degree 3. 543 bminmax = [lagrange_degree_3(m,v(self.a[m-1]),v(self.a[m-2]),v(self.a[m-3])) for v in self.Foo] --> 544 self.b_lower = [bminmax[i][0] for i in range(len(bminmax))] 545 self.b_upper = [bminmax[i][1] for i in range(len(bminmax))] 546 IndexError: list index out of range
The fix is easy: we just need to add the lines
if len(z4minmax) < 1: z4minmax = [0.0, -1.0] return z4minmax
before line 295 of sage/rings/number_field/totallyreal_data.pyx. (Yes, I'm still intimidated by creating a patch.)
The issue was that when the lagrange multipliers gives contradictory bounds (a good thing, since it says the enumeration can stop in that branch), it was not sending a pair of bounds, just a single element, causing a type error.
JV
Apply: trac_13101_bug_in_enumerate_totallyreal_fields_all.patch, trac_13101_review.patch, trac_13101_long_time.patch,
Attachments (3)
Change History (17)
Changed 6 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by
- Reviewers citro deleted
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by
Thanks for doing this and for fixing the typo! Yes, the tabbing/formatting is correct. Am I allowed to review this? JV
comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by
Hmm, I don't really know how that works. I mean, if you did, you'd probably want to remove your name from the authors... You could try, what's the worse that could happen?!
comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by
- Keywords sd51 added
- Reviewers set to Alex Ghitza
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.11 to sage-5.12
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
The added doctest really takes too long. Can the bug be tested with a shorted test? Otherwise, simply mark the test something like
# not tested (too long time)
comment:8 follow-up: ↓ 9 Changed 6 years ago by
Did someone add
sage: enumerate_totallyreal_fields_all(8, 10^8)
to the doctest? This was just an example that caused the stupid bug and I don't think it was ever intended for a doctest. But then we also probably want to keep it for future testing purposes, right?
There is an easy doctest in there already
enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel(F, 2, 2000)
and for general purposes of testing, this should be enough, IMHO. JV
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 6 years ago by
Yeah, I added that doctest: every time there is a bug fix, there has to be a corresponding doctest added to show that the bug has been fixed. Since I'm not really familiar with the workings of this part of sage, I simply took the snippet of code from the bug report and added it as a doctest. What Jeroen is asking is whether there is a shorter test that would fail before this bug fix but pass afterwards, thus showing things were fixed. Can you cook one of those up?
Replying to jvoight:
Did someone add
sage: enumerate_totallyreal_fields_all(8, 10^8)to the doctest? This was just an example that caused the stupid bug and I don't think it was ever intended for a doctest. But then we also probably want to keep it for future testing purposes, right?
There is an easy doctest in there already
enumerate_totallyreal_fields_rel(F, 2, 2000)and for general purposes of testing, this should be enough, IMHO. JV
comment:10 Changed 6 years ago by
OK, got it. Then yes, just use
sage: enumerate_totallyreal_fields_all(8, 10^6)
which should return
[]
as the smallest totally real octic field has discriminant 282300416 > 10^{6}. This triggers the error on my unpatched version. Is this quick enough for the doctest?
JV
Changed 6 years ago by
comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
here is a review patch, with more reasonable tests.
comment:12 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Reviewers changed from Alex Ghitza to Alex Ghitza, Peter Bruin
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Looks good. The new doctest takes around 2 seconds on the AMD64 2.2 GHz system that I tested it on. I think marking this as "long time" is still justified; I'm adding this as a reviewer patch.
comment:13 Changed 5 years ago by
- Branch set to u/vbraun/enumerate_totallyreal
- Commit set to 3923f3ad585170c563a4ba7f4d3edbe1c6356f96
comment:14 Changed 5 years ago by
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Okay, I made a patch with the change you mentioned (I think I figured out what indentation you meant, but double-check to make sure). The output of this command should be the empty array, right? That's what I gather from the data on your website/your paper.
(Also, I fixed a typo).