Opened 6 years ago
Closed 5 years ago
#18266 closed enhancement (fixed)
Conversion from Sage polynomial to gap/libgap
Reported by: | vdelecroix | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-7.4 |
Component: | interfaces | Keywords: | |
Cc: | vbraun, jipilab | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Vincent Delecroix | Reviewers: | Travis Scrimshaw |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | f1b8bcd (Commits, GitHub, GitLab) | Commit: | f1b8bcd98ffadede706ec244975fab07fa3bd942 |
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
It is not possible to use (in a straightforward way) univariate polynomial in libgap
sage: R.<x> = ZZ[] sage: libgap(x^5+2*x+1) Traceback (most recent call last): ... ValueError: libGAP: Error, Variable: 'x' must have a value
And multivariate polynomials with either gap or libgap
sage: R.<x,y> = ZZ[] sage: gap(x+y) Traceback (most recent call last): ... TypeError: Gap produced error output sage: libgap(x+y) Traceback (most recent call last): ... ValueError: libGAP: Error, Variable: 'x' must have a value
The above ticket (partially based on #2420) implement the above conversions.
Note: The conversion from gap/libgap to Sage does not work as well and will be dealt with in #21020.
Change History (10)
comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by
- Branch set to u/vdelecroix/18266
- Commit set to f1b8bcd98ffadede706ec244975fab07fa3bd942
- Milestone changed from sage-6.7 to sage-7.3
comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to needs_review
- Summary changed from Conversion between Sage and libgap polynomials to Conversion from Sage polynomial to gap/libgap
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by
It looks good except for _coerce_map_from_
. I don't think it is a good idea to have libgap
have a coerce map from everything; there are many algebras that (lib)gap almost certainly has no idea about (e.g., Jordan algebras).
comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by
- coercion between interfaces objects and Sage objects should be one way. So if for a given ring there is a coercion
Sage -> GAP
then it should be the case for every ring that GAP understands.
- The solution I used is precisely what is done with PARI/GP (see for instance the
PariInstance
class in/sage/libs/pari/pari_instance.pyx
)
- Implementing the function
_coerce_map_from_
would be a useless pain
- "interface objects" are only intended for people having a knowledge of the underlying software
Now, if for some specific GAP
object you want to lift it back to Sage then you can either use conversion (i.e. MyParent(my_interface_object)
) or use the .sage()
method
sage: pari(13).sage() 13 sage: parent(_) Integer Ring sage: gap(13).sage() 13 sage: parent(_) Integer Ring sage: libgap(13).sage() 13 sage: parent(_) Integer Ring
comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by
The problem with unlimited coercion maps is that we get a bad (IMO incorrect) error message (this is on develop
):
sage: cat = Algebras(QQ).WithBasis().FiniteDimensional() sage: C = CombinatorialFreeModule(QQ, ['x','y','z'], category=cat) sage: J1 = JordanAlgebra(C, names=['a','b','c']) sage: J1.an_element() + gap(2) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TypeError Traceback (most recent call last) ... TypeError: unsupported operand parent(s) for '+': 'Jordan algebra of Free module generated by {'x', 'y', 'z'} over Rational Field' and 'Gap' sage: J1.an_element() + pari(2) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PariError Traceback (most recent call last) ... PariError: incorrect type in gtos [integer expected] (t_POL)
There should be a conversion, but I think a coercion is far too strong. Perhaps we should ask sage-devel?
comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by
It is a good idea to discuss what should we do concerning coercion and external softwares/libraries.
Concerning this ticket, it is very handy that the coercion always go from Sage to third party interfaces
sage: x = polygen(ZZ) sage: p = x^3 + 2*x + 1 sage: p(pari(2)) 13 sage: type(_) <type 'sage.libs.pari.gen.gen'>
Making explicit the subset of Sage parents that can actually be represented in a given interface might indeed be much better. But certainly harder to write and maintain. The way I choose is the lazy one. The error messages you mentioned are wrong but should never appear if you restrict to "pure Sage functions". If desirable for pari/gap, I guess that implementing it belongs to another ticket.
comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by
And this is not the only wrong thing with interfaces. The default implementation of conversion between Sage and the interfaces etc relies on string representations and global variables... which is of course unreliable
sage: R = PolynomialRing(ZZ,('x','y','z')) sage: p = 3*R.0*R.1 + R.2^3 sage: pari(p).sage() Traceback (most recent call last): ... NameError: name 'y' is not defined
or
sage: pari(ZZ).sage() <built-in function IntegerRing> sage: pari(RR) RealFieldwith53bitsofprecision sage: pari(RR).sage() Traceback (most recent call last): ... NameError: name 'RealFieldwith53bitsofprecision' is not defined
comment:9 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-7.3 to sage-7.4
- Reviewers set to Travis Scrimshaw
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Well, since we already do a catch-all coercion for pari
and we got no response from sage-devel, I can tolerate the current state of the coercion.
comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by
- Branch changed from u/vdelecroix/18266 to f1b8bcd98ffadede706ec244975fab07fa3bd942
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
New commits:
Trac 18266: Sage polynomial -> gap/libgap polynomial