Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#15243 closed enhancement (fixed)
Change algorithm for K.uniformizer(P)
Reported by: | jdemeyer | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-5.13 |
Component: | number fields | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Merged in: | sage-5.13.beta0 | |
Authors: | Jeroen Demeyer | Reviewers: | John Cremona |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | #14476, #15124 | Stopgaps: |
Description
As shown by #14476, it is annoying that the following depends on the hardware:
sage: K.<t> = NumberField(x^4 - x^3 - 3*x^2 - x + 1) sage: [K.uniformizer(P) for P,e in factor(K.ideal(5))]
Moreover, the algorithm for K.uniformizer()
seems inefficient: instead of calling idealappr()
, we can simply use the second component of the pari_prime()
structure. Experiments show that this yields equal results for 32-bit and 64-bit machines (but there is no guarantee).
Attachments (1)
Change History (18)
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by
- Summary changed from Change algoritm for K.uniformizer(P) to Change algorithm for K.uniformizer(P)
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by
- Dependencies set to #14476
Changed 8 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by
The change to sage/libs/pari/decl.pxi
is to remove a duplicate definition of stackdummy()
(and is technically unrelated to this patch). The change to sage/libs/pari/gen.pyx
is to use a version of idealappr()
with an extra flag, see
gp> ?idealappr idealappr(nf,x,{flag=0}): x being a fractional ideal, gives an element b such that v_p(b)=v_p(x) for all prime ideals p dividing x, and v_p(b)>=0 for all other p. If (optional) flag is non-null x must be a prime ideal factorization with possibly zero exponents.
comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by
Thanks. Patch looks good, testing now on 64-bit...32 will take longer....
comment:7 Changed 8 years ago by
..getting some 32-bit errors in number_field.py, full report when it finishes.
comment:8 Changed 8 years ago by
On 32-bit:
sage -t --long devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py # 2 doctests failed sage -t --long devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_number_field.py # 3 doctests failed sage -t --long devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py # 1 doctest failed sage -t --long devel/sage/sage/rings/residue_field.pyx # 1 doctest failed sage -t --long devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_local_data.py # 1 doctest failed
I will give further details later but will not have access to the 32-bit machine again until the evening.
comment:9 follow-up: ↓ 10 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Strange, all tests pass for me on 32-bit. Are you sure you don't have any other patches applied (apart from #14476 and #15243)?
I am pretty confident in that but will check. The machine is at home though, and I no longer have a 32-bit desktop in my office, so cannot do it before this evening.
It's certainly getting harder to test 32-bit builds these days!
comment:11 Changed 8 years ago by
To confirm: this was sage-5.12.beta4 and the only patches applied are
trac_14476_bugs_in_local_data.patch trac_14476_trac_links.patch 15243_uniformizer.patch
Here are some details:
********************************************************************** File "devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 5205, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic.uniformizer Failed example: K.ideal(pi).factor() Expected: (Fractional ideal (2, a + 1))^-1 * (Fractional ideal (3, a + 1)) Got: (Fractional ideal (2, a + 1)) * (Fractional ideal (3, a + 1)) **********************************************************************
********************************************************************** File "devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_local_data.py", line 671, in sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.ell_local_data.EllipticCurveLocalData._tate Failed example: E.conductor() # indirect doctest Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/john/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 479, in _run self.execute(example, compiled, test.globs) File "/home/john/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 838, in execute exec compiled in globs File "<doctest sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.ell_local_data.EllipticCurveLocalData._tate[11]>", line 1, in <module> E.conductor() # indirect doctest File "/home/john/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_number_field.py", line 1321, in conductor for d in self.local_data()],\ File "/home/john/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_number_field.py", line 777, in local_data return [self._get_local_data(pr, proof) for pr in primes] File "/home/john/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_number_field.py", line 836, in _get_local_data self._local_data[P, proof, algorithm] = EllipticCurveLocalData(self, P, proof, algorithm) File "/home/john/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_local_data.py", line 270, in __init__ self._Emin, ch, self._val_disc, self._fp, self._KS, self._cp, self._split = self._tate(proof) File "/home/john/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_local_data.py", line 1035, in _tate pi_neg = K.uniformizer(P, 'negative') File "/home/john/sage-5.12.beta4/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 5249, in uniformizer return ~self(nf.idealappr(F, 1)) File "gen.pyx", line 10605, in sage.libs.pari.gen._pari_trap (sage/libs/pari/gen.c:56583) PariError: (5) **********************************************************************
and similar.
comment:12 follow-up: ↓ 13 Changed 8 years ago by
I don't know what to say, it works for me...
Just to be sure, can you remove all patches, re-download and apply them and do ./sage -b
and test again?
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 ; follow-up: ↓ 14 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
I don't know what to say, it works for me...
Just to be sure, can you remove all patches, re-download and apply them and do
./sage -b
and test again?
OK, will do
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:15 Changed 8 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #14476 to #14476, #15124
comment:16 Changed 8 years ago by
- Reviewers set to John Cremona
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
With the extra dependency satisfied all is well, and all tests pass on a 32-bit machine too. Positive review!
comment:17 Changed 8 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.13.beta0
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Could you explain the first two hunks of your patch?