Opened 5 years ago
Last modified 4 years ago
#16107 new enhancement
Meta ticket: unified sequence/lazy list objects
Reported by: | rws | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-6.4 |
Component: | combinatorics | Keywords: | days57, LazyPowerSeries |
Cc: | MatthieuDien, vdelecroix, nthiery, mantepse | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | ||
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | #15852, #15673, #16137, #18565, #19895, #19896 | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Several (maybe specialized) implementations of lazy lists exist. This meta ticket can be considered closed when
- #15852: uncouple sequence from categories (was earlier: the
class Sequence
has a parent from the categorySets
implemented) class Sequence
: maybe renaming toFiniteSequence
- #16137: extend lazy_list: lazy_list from various input data
- #19895: extend lazy_list: various improvements and generalizations, new sublists
- #19896: implementation of
class InfiniteSequence
- let both (
class Sequence
,class InfiniteSequence
) usesage.misc.lazy_list
- #18565: catalog of sequences
- #15673: refactor code in
combinat.species.*stream
to usesage.misc.lazy_list
- if obsolete close #6800
Change History (32)
comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by
- Cc Matthieu DIen added
- Keywords days57 added
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by
- Cc MatthieuDien vdelecroix added; Matthieu DIen removed
comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by
- Cc nthiery added
comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by
After some tests, sage.misc.lazy_list
seems to be faster than sage.structure.sequence
and sage.combinat.species.*stream
because it it cythonized.
We will try to do an implementation of sage.combinat.species.series_stream
over sage.misc.lazy_list
comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #15852, #15673 to #15852, #15673, #16107
- Description modified (diff)
comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.2 to sage-6.3
comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #15852, #15673, #16107 to #15852, #15673, #16137
comment:9 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.3 to sage-6.4
comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by
- Keywords LazyPowerSeries added
comment:11 Changed 4 years ago by
- Cc mantepse added
comment:12 Changed 4 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:13 Changed 4 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Summary changed from unified sequence/lazy list objects in category tree to unified sequence/lazy list objects
comment:14 Changed 4 years ago by
I've updated the description. Please add here what else should be done; maybe something in words? ...or for lazy power series?
comment:15 Changed 4 years ago by
- Summary changed from unified sequence/lazy list objects to Meta ticket: unified sequence/lazy list objects
comment:16 follow-up: ↓ 18 Changed 4 years ago by
I am thinking about implementing InfiniteSequences and have the following design issue with the two possibilites (it is not restricted to the infinite sequences, but is similar for other classes like words, stream in the species, etc., as well):
- make
lazy_list_generic
a base class ofInfiniteSequence
- make an attribute
values
(or similar) in the classInfiniteSequence
which will be an instance oflazy_list_generic
Both have advantages and disadvantages:
Sequence
uses list as a base class, thusInfiniteSequence
should uselazy_list
- With 1. you can only use
lazy_list_generic
, but no derived class likelazy_list_iterator
directly; you have to create alazy_list_generic
which tracks the other (as itsmaster
attribute; is already implemented since used with slices) - With 2. you need to write methods for all the things you like from the lazy lists (like building slices etc.). And even then, it is not a lazy list, but just behaves like one.
What do you think?
comment:17 follow-up: ↓ 20 Changed 4 years ago by
I just realized that sage.combinat.species.series_stream
actually implements streams of coefficients of lazy power series. I'll have to experiment there, too,...
Should InfiniteSequence
be the same? What is the algebraic structure?
comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 16 ; follow-up: ↓ 19 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to dkrenn:
- With 1. you can only use
lazy_list_generic
, but no derived class likelazy_list_iterator
directly; you have to create alazy_list_generic
which tracks the other (as itsmaster
attribute; is already implemented since used with slices)
Could you explain? What does it mean that you cannot use a derived class directly?
comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 18 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to mantepse:
Replying to dkrenn:
- With 1. you can only use
lazy_list_generic
, but no derived class likelazy_list_iterator
directly; you have to create alazy_list_generic
which tracks the other (as itsmaster
attribute; is already implemented since used with slices)Could you explain? What does it mean that you cannot use a derived class directly?
class InfiniteSequence(SageObject, lazy_list_generic)
But when using the factory lazy_list
, I may get a lazy_list_iterator
or similar, so AFAIK I cannot use it in InfiniteSequence
directly. I need to do either
- create
class InfiniteSequenceIterator(InfiniteSequence, lazy_list_iterator)
(and have to do this for all possiblelazy_list_*
or - create a
lazy_list_generic
(InfiniteSequence
), which uses the data of thelazy_list_iterator
, i.e., trackslazy_list_iterator
. Thus having always twolazy_list_*
instances instantiated.
comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 17 ; follow-up: ↓ 21 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to mantepse:
I just realized that
sage.combinat.species.series_stream
actually implements streams of coefficients of lazy power series. I'll have to experiment there, too,...Should
InfiniteSequence
be the same? What is the algebraic structure?
No algebraic strcture (due to the discussion on #15852 about (finite) sequences).
comment:21 in reply to: ↑ 20 ; follow-up: ↓ 22 Changed 4 years ago by
comment:22 in reply to: ↑ 21 ; follow-up: ↓ 23 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to mantepse:
Replying to dkrenn:
Replying to mantepse:
Should
InfiniteSequence
be the same? What is the algebraic structure?No algebraic strcture (due to the discussion on #15852 about (finite) sequences).
Ah, but then what is the difference between
lazy_list
andInfiniteSequence
?
Sequences have a common universe for all the elements of the lazy list and they are (in contrast to lazy list) a SageObject
and not only Python's object
.
comment:23 in reply to: ↑ 22 ; follow-up: ↓ 24 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to dkrenn:
Ah, but then what is the difference between
lazy_list
andInfiniteSequence
?Sequences have a common universe for all the elements of the lazy list and they are (in contrast to lazy list) a
SageObject
and not only Python'sobject
.
OK, so in particular this answers my question: a stream of coefficients should not inherit from lazy_list_generic
:-) (and thanks for pointing out that lazy_list
is not a class!)
comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 23 ; follow-up: ↓ 25 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to mantepse:
Replying to dkrenn:
Ah, but then what is the difference between
lazy_list
andInfiniteSequence
?Sequences have a common universe for all the elements of the lazy list and they are (in contrast to lazy list) a
SageObject
and not only Python'sobject
.OK, so in particular this answers my question: a stream of coefficients should not inherit from
lazy_list_generic
:-) (and thanks for pointing out thatlazy_list
is not a class!)
So your question back to you: What characterizes a stream on your sense?
And why not using lazy_list_generic
as base? (To point this out: It works; has advantages and disadvantages).
comment:25 in reply to: ↑ 24 ; follow-up: ↓ 26 Changed 4 years ago by
Sequences have a common universe for all the elements of the lazy list and they are (in contrast to lazy list) a
SageObject
and not only Python'sobject
.OK, so in particular this answers my question: a stream of coefficients should not inherit from
lazy_list_generic
:-) (and thanks for pointing out thatlazy_list
is not a class!)So your question back to you: What characterizes a stream on your sense? And why not using
lazy_list_generic
as base? (To point this out: It works; has advantages and disadvantages).
(I assume you mean stream of coefficients?)
I want both a common universe and an algebraic structure: all coefficients are from a ring - in particular, I absolutely need a (recognisable!) zero.
comment:26 in reply to: ↑ 25 ; follow-up: ↓ 27 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to mantepse:
Sequences have a common universe for all the elements of the lazy list and they are (in contrast to lazy list) a
SageObject
and not only Python'sobject
.OK, so in particular this answers my question: a stream of coefficients should not inherit from
lazy_list_generic
:-) (and thanks for pointing out thatlazy_list
is not a class!)So your question back to you: What characterizes a stream on your sense? And why not using
lazy_list_generic
as base? (To point this out: It works; has advantages and disadvantages).(I assume you mean stream of coefficients?)
Yes.
I want both a common universe and an algebraic structure: all coefficients are from a ring - in particular, I absolutely need a (recognisable!) zero.
What operations are allowed on streams then? (I assume point-wise addition; what do you need multiplication for?)
comment:27 in reply to: ↑ 26 ; follow-up: ↓ 28 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to mantepse:
I want both a common universe and an algebraic structure: all coefficients are from a ring - in particular, I absolutely need a (recognisable!) zero.
So your streams seem to be a more specialized than my sequences. In this way, would it be an option for you that streams have sequences as a base class?
Is a stream of you a Sage Element
? (I would guess so).
comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 27 Changed 4 years ago by
What operations are allowed on streams then? (I assume point-wise addition; what do you need multiplication for?)
Well, I really want to keep them relatively general, mainly because I won't gain anything by requiring certain operation. I do think that it makes sense to require that the coefficients are from a (possibly noncommutative) ring. I can't think of any applications where we do not have this. I need the recognisable zero to be able to do the trick with recursive definition.
So your streams seem to be a more specialized than my sequences. In this way, would it be an option for you that streams have sequences as a base class?
Yes, certainly.
Is a stream of you a Sage
Element
? (I would guess so).
Yes.
comment:29 Changed 4 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:30 Changed 4 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:31 Changed 4 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #15852, #15673, #16137 to #15852, #15673, #16137, #19895, #19896
comment:32 Changed 4 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #15852, #15673, #16137, #19895, #19896 to #15852, #15673, #16137, #18565, #19895, #19896
- Description modified (diff)
Fot the last point : I did a benchmark between it and the current implementation and #6800 was really slow (and have some bugs).
For now, I have to do a benchmark between #15673 and another implementation, so I willl look for look for other points