Opened 7 years ago
Last modified 4 years ago
#14685 needs_work defect
error in the computing of the approximate order in LazyPowerSeries
Reported by: | MatthieuDien | Owned by: | sage-combinat |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-6.6 |
Component: | combinatorics | Keywords: | LazyPowerSeries aorder approximate order |
Cc: | mantepse | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Matthieu Dien | Reviewers: | Mike Hansen |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: | wrongAnswerMarker |
Description (last modified by )
Hi,
I found a bug in the LazyPowerSeries? class of package combinat. There is mistake in the computing of the approximate order of a serie. A demonstration of the bug :
sage: R = LazyPowerSeriesRing(QQ) sage: B = R([0,0,0,1,0]) sage: B.aorder 0 sage: B.coefficients(10) [0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] sage: B.aorder 1
The good result should be 3 and not 1 (the order of the series B = x^{3} is 3 not 1 )
The bug is that the aorder is computed one time and never updated. This is because the order was assigned the first time then the condition self.order != unk becomes false and the update never comes.
After the patch, we obtain :
sage: R = LazyPowerSeriesRing(QQ) sage: B = R([0,0,0,1,0]) sage: B.aorder 0 sage: B.coefficients(10) [0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] sage: B.aorder 3
What we expected.
PS : Thanks you for the commments, I tried to answer them. PS 2 : I modified the patch as you asked
Attachments (2)
Change History (29)
comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Type changed from PLEASE CHANGE to defect
comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by
Hello,
the corrected behaviour should be added to the code, in the documentation at the start of the function.
Your patch still looks strange. How do you make it ?
You should
1) cd to the directory sage-5.9/devel/sage-main/ 2) create a patch with hg qnew trac_xxxxx_name_of_the_patch.patch 3) edit the sources 4) put the changes into the patch by hg qrefresh (then either go to step 3 or step 5) 5) edit the header of the patch by hg qrefresh -e 6) export the patch by hg export tip > filename (for example $HOME/trac_xxxxx_name_of_the_patch.patch) 7) put this exported file in trac
comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by
Hi!
Thanks for working on the lazy power series code; it needs some love.
Just one thing to be careful with; I haven't looked in detail in your code, so maybe it takes care of this already:
The method might be passed as argument a lazy power series implemented by a function f(n) which returns always 0; or some non zero coefficient but only for n very large. In such a case we don't want to run forever: this is about computing an approximation of the order, and often, knowing that the order is at least 1 or at least 2 is sufficient for the purpose (initializing the recurrence for computing series defined recursively).
Of course, there are case where we do want the exact order, even at the price of running for a long time.
Its possible that the interface needs a bit of cleaning up so that the distinction between approximate order and order would be well exposed (and by the way maybe this should really be called valuation rather than order).
comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by
for chapoton :
I made the patch with a diff -Naur but I will fix this. Thank you for the detailed method.
for nthiery :
I am not sure to understand what you said : currently the computing of the approximate order cost is amortized on every request for a serie's term (and it's a little cost). Normally, the order should be known when the approximate order reaches him.
The patch keeps this behavior. This was your question ?
Moreover, the current version do not compute the right order too :
sage: R = LazyPowerSeriesRing(QQ) sage: B = R([0,0,0,1,0]) sage: B.order Unknown series order sage: B.coefficients(10) [0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] sage: B.aorder 0 #instead of 3
comment:9 Changed 7 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:10 Changed 7 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Mike Hansen
- Status changed from new to needs_review
I posted a version of the patch which fixes the commit message. This looks good to me, and I agree with Matthieu's assessment of the amortized costs.
comment:11 follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed 7 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to mhansen: Thank you !
Changed 7 years ago by
comment:13 Changed 7 years ago by
The new patch should apply.
comment:14 Changed 7 years ago by
Apply trac_14685_bug_aorder_lazypowerseries.patch
comment:15 Changed 7 years ago by
What's going wrong?
darij@travis-virtualbox:~/sage-5.11.beta3/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat$ hg qpush applying trac_14685_bug_aorder_lazypowerseries.patch patching file sage/combinat/species/series.py Hunk #2 FAILED at 641 Hunk #3 FAILED at 660 2 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/combinat/species/series.py.rej patch failed, unable to continue (try -v) patch failed, rejects left in working dir errors during apply, please fix and refresh trac_14685_bug_aorder_lazypowerseries.patch darij@travis-virtualbox:~/sage-5.11.beta3/devel/sage-main/sage/combinat$
Series file:
trac_14808-recoils_of_permutations-ts.patch trac_14117-jordan_normal_form-dg-v3.patch trac_7983-major_index_and_other_tableau_fixes-dg.patch trac_14748_deprecationwarning.patch trac_14136-p_partition_enumerator_folded.patch trac_14507-tropical_semiring-ts.patch trac_14775-symmetric_functions_extended-dg.patch trac_14783-toggles_on_order_ideals-jsdg.patch trac_14516-crystals_speedup-ts.2.patch trac_14519-cynthonize_element_wrapper-ts.patch trac_8386_really_just_moving-fc.patch trac_8386_big_clean_fc.patch trac_8386_assert_removal.patch trac_14772-remove_cc_permutations-ts.patch trac_13589-categories-c3_under_control-nt.patch trac_14884-tableau_times_id-dg.patch trac_14883-remove_times_id-dg.patch trac_14101-remove_cc_skew-ts.patch trac_14882-backtrack_longtime-dg-v2.patch trac_14881-symmetric_group_algebra_rebased-dg.patch trac_13214_hom_finite_field.patch trac_14860-bug-binary-trees-vp.patch trac_12571-shifted_shuffle_of_permutations-reviewed.patch trac_14685_bug_aorder_lazypowerseries.patch
comment:16 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.11 to sage-5.12
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
This doesn't apply to sage-5.11.beta3:
applying /release/merger/patches/trac_14685_bug_aorder_lazypowerseries.patch patching file sage/combinat/species/series.py Hunk #2 FAILED at 641 Hunk #3 FAILED at 660 2 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/combinat/species/series.py.rej abort: patch failed to apply
comment:17 Changed 7 years ago by
I've attached a modified version of the patch that applies on my system. Since Jeroen, me and the patchbot seem to be stumbling over the same error, I assume this might be of some help. All I've changed were deleted lines, which gives me some hope I didn't break anything, so I'm going to be blunt:
Patchbot:
apply trac_14685-darijs_mod.patch
comment:18 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.12 to sage-5.11
comment:19 Changed 7 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:20 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.11 to sage-5.12
comment:21 Changed 7 years ago by
- Cc mantepse added
comment:22 Changed 7 years ago by
A fix is in #15673
comment:23 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.1 to sage-6.2
comment:24 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.2 to sage-6.3
comment:25 Changed 6 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.3 to sage-6.4
comment:26 Changed 6 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.4 to sage-6.6
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Needs a working git branch
comment:27 Changed 4 years ago by
- Stopgaps set to wrongAnswerMarker
Bienvenue à bord !
Your patch does not looks good: it contains three times the same thing. It is necessary to make it again in a more clean way.
It is not clear to me what the expected result should be in the example given above. Which answer is correct and which one is not ?
Apart from that, it would be good to add a test to check that the error is corrected. Something like
and then the appropriate example.