Opened 3 years ago
Closed 8 months ago
#24658 closed defect (fixed)
Don't call Maxima with novariable symbolic relation tests
Reported by:  rws  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage9.2 
Component:  symbolics  Keywords:  
Cc:  SimonKing  Merged in:  
Authors:  Ralf Stephan  Reviewers:  Simon King, Matthias Koeppe 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  e78e84b (Commits, GitHub, GitLab)  Commit:  e78e84bfcd13292e30969c2be007e71337810c87 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
In the case a relation without variables is to be decided, the procedure is to use Pynac, then RIF and, if it cannot be decided, Maxima. This is fine with expressions containing variables as Maxima can do some proofs. Expressions without variables are handled poorly as the example shows:
sage: val = pi  2286635172367940241408/1029347477390786609545*sqrt(2) sage: bool(val>0) True (%i2) is (%pi(1116521080257783321*2^(23/2))/1029347477390786609545>0); (%o2) true
This ticket changes the procedure to no longer try the unreliable Maxima after RIF has failed in a relation without variables. It will just return False.
Change History (35)
comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by
 Branch set to u/rws/don_t_call_maxima_with_no_variable_symbolic_relation_tests
comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit set to 0a29d407464bbff73b3de64b2f4e2d4f90b6d8f4
 Description modified (diff)
 Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by
comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by
 Cc SimonKing added
comment:5 followups: ↓ 7 ↓ 9 Changed 3 years ago by
It should be easy to review (after all, it is just working around a shortcoming of maxima), and to me it looks good. However, I do not feel particularly confident about symbolic expressions (which I normally try to avoid by all means).
Also, I wonder about that change:

src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
diff git a/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx b/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx index 7130898..0f943d9 100644
a b cdef class Expression(CommutativeRingElement): 2612 2612 The :meth:`~sage.structure.element.Element.is_zero` method 2613 2613 is more capable:: 2614 2614 2615 sage: t = pi + (pi  1)*pi  pi^22615 sage: t = pi + x*pi + (pi  1  x)*pi  pi^2 2616 2616 sage: t.is_trivial_zero() 2617 2617 False 2618 2618 sage: t.is_zero()
Why did you change it? Apparently in order to have a variable in it. So, without the variable, t.is_trivial_zero()
would return True
, right? Which somehow makes sense, actually. I believe one should retain both tests, to showcase that Sage can now detect some more expressions which are trivially zero.
comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by
PS: Also I think that in the new test val = pi  2286635172367940241408/1029347477390786609545*sqrt(2)
(which actually comes out of Ramanujan's formula for pi) the ticket number should be mentioned.
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Also, I wonder about that change:
src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
diff git a/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx b/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx index 7130898..0f943d9 100644
a b cdef class Expression(CommutativeRingElement): 2612 2612 The :meth:`~sage.structure.element.Element.is_zero` method 2613 2613 is more capable:: 2614 2614 2615 sage: t = pi + (pi  1)*pi  pi^22615 sage: t = pi + x*pi + (pi  1  x)*pi  pi^2 2616 2616 sage: t.is_trivial_zero() 2617 2617 False 2618 2618 sage: t.is_zero() Why did you change it?
Because getting what we want (avoid Maxima numeric) and keeping the doctest would need more involved code, basically checking if there are constants, if so substituting them for variables, and then calling Maxima with that. Note that the changed result is not wrong so I'll add it again.
comment:8 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 0a29d407464bbff73b3de64b2f4e2d4f90b6d8f4 to 17827ea66659d4bf15bcd20c47b1f92d7c1e7418
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
17827ea  24658: address reviewer's comments

comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; followup: ↓ 10 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
So, without the variable,
t.is_trivial_zero()
would returnTrue
, right? Which somehow makes sense, actually. I believe one should retain both tests, to showcase that Sage can now detect some more expressions which are trivially zero.
No is_trivial_zero
test for trivial zero, i.e., 0
.
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 3 years ago by
Hm. (pi + (pi  1)*pi  pi^2).is_zero()
returning False goes to far, IMHO.
If I understand correctly, the underlying bug is in Maxima's test for positivity/negativity. Is there a corresponding bug in Maxima's test for being zero as well? If it isn't, then I guess one should return to using Maxima for is_zero
.
comment:11 followup: ↓ 12 Changed 3 years ago by
Or, alternatively, is_zero()
(but not is_trivial_zero()
) should be cleverer in using RIF:
sage: RIF(pi + (pi  1)*pi  pi^2)>0 False sage: RIF(pi + (pi  1)*pi  pi^2)<0 False sage: RIF(pi + (pi  1)*pi  pi^2)==0 False sage: RIF(pi + (pi  1)*pi  pi^2).is_NaN() False
Thus, we have a real number (it is not !NaN) that is neither positive nor negative, and thus it would make sense to treat it as zero, although RIF is careful enough to not assert that it actually is zero.
Or prepend it by a simplification?
sage: RIF((pi + (pi  1)*pi  pi^2).simplify_full()).is_zero() True
After all, presumably is_zero()
is supposed to invest more work into testing than is_trivial_zero()
.
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Thus, we have a real number (it is not !NaN) that is neither positive nor negative, and thus it would make sense to treat it as zero, although RIF is careful enough to not assert that it actually is zero.
Your own example (val
) above would then be treated as zero too.
Or prepend it by a simplification?
That is probably best. One can always construct cases that need long time like ((pi+1)^10000  pi*(pi+1)^9999  (pi+1)^9999).simplify_full()
.
comment:13 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 17827ea66659d4bf15bcd20c47b1f92d7c1e7418 to 590600b9723c2cc8d8b985097725854cb486390a
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
590600b  24658: if test_relation fails try again simplified

comment:14 Changed 3 years ago by
OK, this looks fine in symbolics, there may be failing doctests elsewhere.
comment:15 Changed 3 years ago by
There is a doctest in manifolds that relies on arctanh(1/2) + 1/2*log(3) == 0
. That should be resolved by implementing more special values for atanh
. Surprise, I thought we had them all.
comment:16 Changed 3 years ago by
Maxima cannot simplify arctanh(1/2)  1/2*log(3)
. The question is do we formulate the doctest differently, or do we implement rewrite of inverse hyperbolic expressions, e.g. for integer and rational number arguments, either immediately or inside simplify_full
.
comment:17 Changed 3 years ago by
 Dependencies set to #24668
The new Pynac has the atanh simpifications and so we depend on that upgrade to fix the manifolds doctest fail.
comment:18 followup: ↓ 22 Changed 3 years ago by
This one is serious because it does happen only when doctesting, and bool(SR(...))
does not seem to be involved directly.
File "src/sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 1514, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.hom._is_coercion_cached Failed example: R._is_coercion_cached(QQ) Expected: False Got: True
It goes away if I replace QQ
with QQbar
. I think that the coercion cache is not really erased with creation of a new parent, and the additional call to test_relation
in this ticket fills it with something. There are doctest calls to bool(SR(...))
that happen before that doctest in parent.pyx
, let's see...
comment:19 followup: ↓ 20 Changed 3 years ago by
Got it, it comes from the doctest sqrt(2) in CC
in line 1051 of pynac.pyx
. How can I turn off that it influences the doctest in line 1514?
comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 19 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to rws:
Got it, it comes from the doctest
sqrt(2) in CC
in line 1051 ofparent.pyx
. How can I turn off that it influences the doctest in line 1514?
comment:21 Changed 3 years ago by
I meant to write parent.pyx
.
comment:22 in reply to: ↑ 18 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to rws:
This one is serious because it does happen only when doctesting, and
bool(SR(...))
does not seem to be involved directly.File "src/sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 1514, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.hom._is_coercion_cached Failed example: R._is_coercion_cached(QQ) Expected: False Got: True
._is_coercion_cached()
is related with self._coerce_from_hash
. I think it would be a good idea to create a single underscore method that allows to clear self._coerce_from_hash
and self._convert_from_hash
. Proposed name: _clear_coerce_caches
.
For sanity, I think it would make sense to open a separate ticket for it, which I will do in a few minutes. Then, you can use the new ticket as a dependency and add a ._clear_coerce_caches()
in front of any test that requires a pristine state of the coercion cache.
comment:23 Changed 3 years ago by
 Dependencies changed from #24668 to #24668 #24673
comment:24 Changed 3 years ago by
Aha, I just found that Parent.init_coerce(False)
would do the job. However, it is a cdef method and hence cannot be directly called.
comment:25 Changed 3 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/rws/don_t_call_maxima_with_no_variable_symbolic_relation_tests to u/rws/24658
comment:26 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 590600b9723c2cc8d8b985097725854cb486390a to e78e84bfcd13292e30969c2be007e71337810c87
If you rely on patchbots for review the pynac upgrade needs to be merged by the maintainer first.
New commits:
f5b3de4  24668: version/chzksum

67f9ddc  24668: doctest fixes

e7e68c7  Add method to remove some coercions/conversions from cache

cd359c3  Merge branch 'u/SimonKing/add_a_method_to_clear_coercion_caches_of_a_parent' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into tmp16

0ee9478  Merge branch 'u/rws/don_t_call_maxima_with_no_variable_symbolic_relation_tests' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into tmp16

e78e84b  24658: doctest fixes

comment:27 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
The manifolds test passes now so we trigger the sleeping patchbots.
comment:28 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:29 Changed 2 years ago by
 Dependencies #24668 #24673 deleted
 Milestone changed from sage8.2 to sage8.7
comment:30 Changed 2 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage8.7 to sage8.8
Ticket retargeted after milestone closed (if you don't believe this ticket is appropriate for the Sage 8.8 release please retarget manually)
comment:31 Changed 22 months ago by
 Milestone changed from sage8.8 to sage8.9
Moving tickets from the Sage 8.8 milestone that have been actively worked on in the last six months to the next release milestone (optimistically).
comment:32 Changed 16 months ago by
 Milestone changed from sage8.9 to sage9.1
Ticket retargeted after milestone closed
comment:33 Changed 12 months ago by
 Milestone changed from sage9.1 to sage9.2
Moving tickets to milestone sage9.2 based on a review of last modification date, branch status, and severity.
comment:34 Changed 8 months ago by
 Reviewers set to Simon King, Matthias Koeppe
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
This is a clear improvement.
comment:35 Changed 8 months ago by
 Branch changed from u/rws/24658 to e78e84bfcd13292e30969c2be007e71337810c87
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
New commits:
24658: Don't call Maxima with novariable symbolic relation tests