Opened 5 years ago

Closed 5 years ago

Last modified 4 years ago

#22001 closed defect (fixed)

Category of number field morphisms is always Rings

Reported by: saraedum Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone: sage-7.5
Component: number fields Keywords:
Cc: roed, caruso Merged in:
Authors: Julian Rüth Reviewers: David Roe
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: 07936de (Commits, GitHub, GitLab) Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Status badges

Description (last modified by saraedum)

In the following example, the category should be NumberFields()

sage: R.<x> = QQ[]
sage: K.<a> = QQ.extension(x^2 + 1)
sage: K.hom([a]).category_for()
Category of rings

Change History (15)

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by saraedum

  • Branch set to u/saraedum/category_of_number_field_morphisms_is_always_rings

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by saraedum

  • Branch u/saraedum/category_of_number_field_morphisms_is_always_rings deleted
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

Why would we ignore the cat keyword? Maybe category support was not that great at the time? Let's see what the patchbot thinks.

Last edited 5 years ago by saraedum (previous) (diff)

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by saraedum

Btw. the comment that it is ignored was introduced in

commit 2cda3cde81efa0b5546e60170bee7ae084263a4f
Author: William Stein <wstein@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun Sep 16 23:02:21 2007 -0700

    work in progress on algebraic number theory.

so there is no further info on this.

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by saraedum

  • Cc roed caruso added
  • Description modified (diff)

comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by roed

  • Branch set to u/saraedum/category_of_number_field_morphisms_is_always_rings
  • Commit set to 2d2818f932c5b7b59e3094a958787a36b614c9f3

It looks like you deleted the branch when you set it to needs review. I'm putting the branch back, but if there's something wrong with the branch let me know.


New commits:

2d2818fDo not ignore the cat keyword of number field morphisms

comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by roed

  • Reviewers set to David Roe
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

Looks good to me.

comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

See patchbot: sage -t --long --warn-long 53.9 src/sage/schemes/projective/projective_morphism.py # 2 doctests failed

comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 2d2818f932c5b7b59e3094a958787a36b614c9f3 to 07936ded16c7cf6b03fea3bffc84929a8f30c479

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

07936deA morphism of a number field is a morphism of a ring and vice versa

comment:9 Changed 5 years ago by saraedum

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

New commits:

07936deA morphism of a number field is a morphism of a ring and vice versa

New commits:

07936deA morphism of a number field is a morphism of a ring and vice versa

comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by roed

Do you know why self.homset_category().is_full_subcategory(x.category_for()) returns False?

comment:12 Changed 5 years ago by saraedum

The failing doctest is some latex issue of the patchbot. I don't think it is related to the changes here.

comment:13 Changed 5 years ago by roed

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

Looks good, and patchbot says all tests pass.

comment:14 Changed 5 years ago by vbraun

  • Branch changed from u/saraedum/category_of_number_field_morphisms_is_always_rings to 07936ded16c7cf6b03fea3bffc84929a8f30c479
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed

comment:15 Changed 4 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Commit 07936ded16c7cf6b03fea3bffc84929a8f30c479 deleted

See #23910 for relative number field homsets.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.