Opened 4 years ago
Closed 16 months ago
#14828 closed enhancement (fixed)
Slope factorisation of polynomials over padics
Reported by:  caruso  Owned by:  roed 

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage7.2 
Component:  padics  Keywords:  polynomials, padics, sd52, days71 
Cc:  defeo  Merged in:  
Authors:  Xavier Caruso, Frédéric Chapoton  Reviewers:  Julian Rüth, Maurizio Monge 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  868e84e (Commits)  Commit:  868e84eda1d8eef914171b72e3d629b73134e793 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
Factorization over the padics is currently broken (or at least not very useful.) This implements slope factorization and adds some structure for polynomial rings over discrete valuation rings.
Attachments (1)
Change History (56)
comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by
 Dependencies set to #14823, #14826
 Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 4 years ago by
Changed 4 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by
I updated my patch so that it fits with #14826 (many modifications made there).
comment:4 followup: ↓ 5 Changed 4 years ago by
Hello,
maybe it would be a good idea to close first the simpler ticket #6667 ?
I have made there a patch which is rather "local" but also careless about precision issues.
I see that here you are changing the behaviour of the general Newton polygon, which I would prefer to avoid.
What would you think of trying to use for #6667 a mixture of my patch there and the part of your patch here dealing with that ?
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed 4 years ago by
I agree with all your remarks.
I just do not understand the sense of "you are changing the behaviour of the general Newton polygon". Do you mean that I'm doing some changes in the class NewtonPolygon
. If so, I still believe that it's better to do this way because it really makes sense to create a Newton polygon by giving the list of all valuations of the underlying polynomial (and these valuations may be infinite). Actually, I should have put this modification in #14826 but this ticket is already closed.
comment:6 followup: ↓ 7 Changed 4 years ago by
It seems that the NewtonPolygon? class is not doing what I would have expected. It gives
sage: NP = NewtonPolygon([ (0,0), (1,45), (3,6) ]); NP Finite Newton polygon with 2 vertices: (0, 0), (3, 6)
So it is implicitely assuming that the polytope is rather a kind of "lower envelope". In my opinion, the doc needs to be enhanced, with more explanations and a link to the newton_polytope method below.
Compare to
sage: x,y=polygen(QQ,'x, y') sage: p = 1 + x*y**45 + x**3*y**6 sage: p.newton_polytope() A 2dimensional polyhedron in ZZ^2 defined as the convex hull of 3 vertices sage: p.newton_polytope().vertices() (A vertex at (0, 0), A vertex at (1, 45), A vertex at (3, 6))
which is for me the expected behavior.
Anyway, I still think that this has rather to be solved in #6667.
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to chapoton:
Anyway, I still think that this has rather to be solved in #6667.
I agree. I nevertheless prefer my patch than yours because it basically deals with precision issues. Hence, I've extracted the relevant parts of my patch and submitted them to ticket #6667 (and I've also taken into account your remarks). If you are happy with this solution, please give a positive review to #6667 so that we can close this ticket.
comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by
 Keywords sd52 added
comment:9 Changed 4 years ago by
 Branch set to public/ticket/14828
 Created changed from 06/26/13 12:24:24 to 06/26/13 12:24:24
 Modified changed from 09/02/13 13:03:04 to 09/02/13 13:03:04
comment:10 Changed 4 years ago by
 Dependencies #14823, #14826 deleted
comment:11 Changed 4 years ago by
 Dependencies set to #14823, #14826
comment:12 Changed 4 years ago by
 Cc defeo added
 Milestone changed from sage5.12 to sage6.0
comment:13 Changed 4 years ago by
The mercurial patch conflicted with 5.12beta4.
I manually solved the conflicts. It seems it passes doctests, but I'll feel much more confident if Xavier reviews the new branch.
comment:14 Changed 4 years ago by
I spoke too fast. I have the following failures
sage t src/sage/schemes/hyperelliptic_curves/hyperelliptic_padic_field.py # 3 doctests failed sage t src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/padic_lseries.py # 1 doctest failed sage t src/sage/misc/classgraph.py # 3 doctests failed sage t src/sage/rings/padics/pow_computer_ext.pyx # 1 doctest failed
(plus others that look unrelated).
comment:15 Changed 4 years ago by
comment:16 Changed 4 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.0 to sage6.1
comment:17 Changed 3 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.1 to sage6.2
comment:18 Changed 3 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.2 to sage6.3
comment:19 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit set to c8800dd3368f0bb05b27719b62b889018257c0a6
comment:20 Changed 3 years ago by
comment:21 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
I had a quick lock at this. It seems that many methods/classes lack doctests or docstrings at all. I hope you don't mind that I set this back to needs_work.
comment:22 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from c8800dd3368f0bb05b27719b62b889018257c0a6 to 69ba436cc01833a58b47617c23da38689db3c801
comment:23 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 69ba436cc01833a58b47617c23da38689db3c801 to 8fc61982c456d5b4702b7fcc96ac70b6dc391736
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
8fc6198  more on doc

comment:24 Changed 3 years ago by
Several things are needed :
 add doc to
quo_rem
andfactor_mod
 add oneline description at the beginning of several functions
comment:25 Changed 3 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.3 to sage6.4
comment:26 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 8fc61982c456d5b4702b7fcc96ac70b6dc391736 to 5a1a485c5888b374f8380915eed4fdd3b732d3a5
comment:27 Changed 2 years ago by
 Commit changed from 5a1a485c5888b374f8380915eed4fdd3b732d3a5 to d2f52cf0e8631aee2856bbe60dcbb6e0e1dc2920
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
d2f52cf  Merge branch 'public/ticket/14828' into 6.5.rc0

comment:28 Changed 2 years ago by
This branch is doing too many things unrelated to the topic of the ticket. I think the changes involving categories and the doctest cleanup should be separated in new tickets.
comment:29 Changed 2 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.4 to sage6.8
comment:30 Changed 23 months ago by
 Commit changed from d2f52cf0e8631aee2856bbe60dcbb6e0e1dc2920 to bbe959d69bc3868cdc49a2f2cdc8e62d83bc52d5
comment:31 Changed 23 months ago by
 Dependencies #14823, #14826 deleted
 Description modified (diff)
comment:32 Changed 23 months ago by
 Commit changed from bbe959d69bc3868cdc49a2f2cdc8e62d83bc52d5 to edbf797a6ea03e827122d00895576d945ef6ea8f
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
edbf797  trac #14828 trying to make the doc build

comment:33 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from edbf797a6ea03e827122d00895576d945ef6ea8f to 309d3732b825eabf9c7d192c965a7b28fdb512ab
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
309d373  Merge branch 'public/ticket/14828' into 6.10.beta3

comment:34 Changed 16 months ago by
 Commit changed from 309d3732b825eabf9c7d192c965a7b28fdb512ab to b8cfd47068dfd122946a57cde3767fceed515cc3
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
b8cfd47  Merge branch 'develop' into t/14828/public/ticket/14828

comment:35 Changed 16 months ago by
 Commit changed from b8cfd47068dfd122946a57cde3767fceed515cc3 to 2dd40c1c25c20943db220947e18bac71d8e6c135
comment:36 Changed 16 months ago by
 Commit changed from 2dd40c1c25c20943db220947e18bac71d8e6c135 to a320013e19516836e69e5944d5e0a8601ecf9ac8
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
a320013  More doctests

comment:37 Changed 16 months ago by
I remind you of 28. Doing three unrelated things in one branch is not good practice.
comment:38 Changed 16 months ago by
Yes, thanks for the remainder. I'll try to split my ticket.
comment:39 followup: ↓ 40 Changed 16 months ago by
I believe that if the authors can find a reviewer then it stay in one ticket. It is not pretty. But it is probably not worth splitting it just for the sake of it.
comment:40 in reply to: ↑ 39 Changed 16 months ago by
Replying to saraedum:
I believe that if the authors can find a reviewer then it stay in one ticket.
True, but you might find it easier to find reviewers if you split it up.
But it is probably not worth splitting it just for the sake of it.
That's certainly true, but I don't think it is splitting "just for the sake of it". Besides potentially easier reviewing, there is also less chances of conflicts or breakage with smaller tickets.
comment:41 followup: ↓ 43 Changed 16 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Reviewers set to Julian Rüth
Xavier, I volunteer to review this if you want to set it back to needs review.
comment:42 Changed 16 months ago by
 Keywords days71 added
comment:43 in reply to: ↑ 41 Changed 16 months ago by
Replying to saraedum:
Xavier, I volunteer to review this if you want to set it back to needs review.
Already reviewed during Sage Days 71, I communicated directly with Xavier about all issues that needed to be fixed.
comment:44 Changed 16 months ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.8 to sage7.2
All required wark has been done, so I will mark it as positive_review.
comment:45 Changed 16 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
comment:46 Changed 16 months ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Merge conflict, please fix
comment:47 Changed 16 months ago by
 Commit changed from a320013e19516836e69e5944d5e0a8601ecf9ac8 to b59f44883d55fb5eae40c09c82218197921a7045
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
b59f448  Merge branch 'develop' into t/14828/public/ticket/14828

comment:48 Changed 16 months ago by
 Reviewers changed from Julian Rüth to Julian Rüth, Maurizio Monge
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
This should be fixed (hopefully).
comment:49 Changed 16 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
several failing doctests, see patchbot report
comment:50 Changed 16 months ago by
 Commit changed from b59f44883d55fb5eae40c09c82218197921a7045 to 868e84eda1d8eef914171b72e3d629b73134e793
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
868e84e  Failing doctests fixed

comment:51 Changed 16 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
This should be fixed.
comment:52 Changed 16 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
It seems your last change remove the implementation of content()
.
comment:53 Changed 16 months ago by
Well, I removed it from sage.rings.polynomial.padic.polynomial_padic_capped_relative_dense
but the generic implementation in sage.rings.polynomial.padic.polynomial_padic
is still there. And it works!
comment:55 Changed 16 months ago by
 Branch changed from public/ticket/14828 to 868e84eda1d8eef914171b72e3d629b73134e793
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
I've basically abandoned the code at #6084, but I would like to extract pieces of it into other tickets. I'll try to take a look at this ticket once its prerequisites are fixed and see if I can extract anything useful from #6084 to add here. You have a different approach to polynomials with unknown degree here. I think I like it better than what I was doing, but I need to think about it a bit.