Opened 22 months ago
Closed 20 months ago
#27973 closed enhancement (fixed)
Implement wedge over a face of Polyhedron
Reported by:  jipilab  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage8.9 
Component:  geometry  Keywords:  polytopes, days100, wedge, facet 
Cc:  jipilab, ghLaisRast, ghkliem  Merged in:  
Authors:  Laith Rastanawi, Jonathan Kliem  Reviewers:  JeanPhilippe Labbé 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  38944ad (Commits, GitHub, GitLab)  Commit:  38944ad77e0a7ca760e97fcef85f2b957fe83eba 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
From https://www.csun.edu/~ctoth/Handbook/chap15.pdf:
The wedge over a facet F
of a polytope P
is defined as:
(P \times \mathbb{R}) \cap \{a^\top x +x_{d+1} \leq b\}
where F
is a facet defined by a^\top x leq b
.
It has dimension d+1
, m+1
facets, and 2nn_F
vertices, if F
has n_F
vertices. More generally, the wedge construction can be performed (defined by the same formula) for a face F
.
Change History (62)
comment:1 Changed 22 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 22 months ago by
 Milestone sage8.8 deleted
comment:3 Changed 21 months ago by
 Keywords days100 added; removed
comment:4 Changed 21 months ago by
 Branch set to public/27973
 Commit set to 45bd3123afcafe3ef142e19bbb04f0d6ebda849e
 Keywords wedge facet added
 Status changed from new to needs_info
comment:5 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
comment:6 Changed 21 months ago by
Hi,
 In the docstring, it usually starts with 1 sentence, and empty line and then further information about the method.
 I would say that the width is a "indication of how wide the wedge is taken around the face". Said the current way, it makes it confusing about other potential notions around polytopes (lattice polytopes have widths...) So I would say: "indication of how wide the resulted wedge should be".
 The doctests are not using the function as a method.
 Replace the backtick by single quotes in the error messages.
L = Polyhedron(rays=[[1],[1]])
could bePolyhedron(lines=[[1]])
 I would write
F_Hrep = list(F_Hrep)
after the for loop and replace in the creation of the polytope.
 It would be good to test and show in examples combinatorial isomorphism type with a known polytope which is a wedge. For example the prism over a triangle is a wedge over a triangle. And the duals to cyclic 3polytopes are wedges.
comment:7 followup: ↓ 9 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:8 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from 45bd3123afcafe3ef142e19bbb04f0d6ebda849e to 049e27d49147ebf269a0d3267ae0dd32c1637e42
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
049e27d  more examples and fix docstring

comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 7 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Replying to jipilab:
Thanks. Done.
comment:10 Changed 21 months ago by
Seems like there are tab character in reference/index.rst There seems to be many errors in the bot too...
comment:11 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from 049e27d49147ebf269a0d3267ae0dd32c1637e42 to 193e06bd91b8cd16d8ec796fcae0ac91ee8b592a
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
193e06b  tabs to spaces

comment:12 followup: ↓ 15 Changed 21 months ago by
The description of the ticket is still only about facets.
comment:13 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Please preserve the backend and base ring as in #27926.
comment:14 followup: ↓ 16 Changed 21 months ago by
Actually, I think the backend might be preserved. (product and intersection might behave this way).
Can you please check. Maybe add a doctest.
However, in the intermediate steps you don't preserve the backend. This might cause issues with algebraic polyhedra.
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
The description of the ticket is still only about facets.
Nope. See last sentence of the description.
comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 14 ; followup: ↓ 18 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
Actually, I think the backend might be preserved. (product and intersection might behave this way).
Can you please check. Maybe add a doctest.
However, in the intermediate steps you don't preserve the backend. This might cause issues with algebraic polyhedra.
The backend and the basering are preserved as long as the value of width
belongs to the basering of self
. This is the case when width
takes the default value. Otherwise, we have the following behavior
sage: P = polytopes.cyclic_polytope(3,7); P A 3dimensional polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 7 vertices sage: P.backend() 'ppl' sage: P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0]).backend() 'ppl' sage: P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0]).base_ring() Rational Field sage: P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0], width=RDF(1)).backend() cdd sage: P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0], width=RDF(1)).base_ring() Real Double Field
which I think is an acceptable behavior.
comment:17 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from 193e06bd91b8cd16d8ec796fcae0ac91ee8b592a to 417bfac337f17e93494d8f31b9031f9311cee423
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
417bfac  add tests to check backend and basering

comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 16 ; followups: ↓ 19 ↓ 21 Changed 21 months ago by
The examples you gave are not meaningful. ppl and cdd are the standard backends for the given ring.
What about normaliz with base ring ZZ and width 5/2 (even worse 4/2)? (I suspect backend will not be preserved).
What about the examples of #25097. Do they work?
(Sorry, still can't test it myself).
Replying to ghLaisRast:
Replying to ghkliem:
Actually, I think the backend might be preserved. (product and intersection might behave this way).
Can you please check. Maybe add a doctest.
However, in the intermediate steps you don't preserve the backend. This might cause issues with algebraic polyhedra.
The backend and the basering are preserved as long as the value of
width
belongs to the basering ofself
. This is the case whenwidth
takes the default value. Otherwise, we have the following behaviorsage: P = polytopes.cyclic_polytope(3,7); P A 3dimensional polyhedron in QQ^3 defined as the convex hull of 7 vertices sage: P.backend() 'ppl' sage: P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0]).backend() 'ppl' sage: P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0]).base_ring() Rational Field sage: P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0], width=RDF(1)).backend() cdd sage: P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0], width=RDF(1)).base_ring() Real Double Fieldwhich I think is an acceptable behavior.
comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 18 ; followup: ↓ 20 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
What about normaliz with base ring ZZ and width 5/2 (even worse 4/2)? (I suspect backend will not be preserved).
What about the examples of #25097. Do they work?
(Sorry, still can't test it myself).
The polyhedron H
is the responsible for changing the base ring and the backend. The following should fix the problem (up to change of base ring form ZZ to QQ, see W2
below):
 def wedge(self, face, width=1): + def wedge(self, face, width=None): r""" Return the wedge over a ``face`` of the polytope ``self``. @@ 4205,6 +4205,10 @@ class Polyhedron_base(Element): sage: P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0], width=RDF(1)).base_ring() Real Double Field """ + if width is None: + width = ZZ.one() + if not self.is_compact(): raise ValueError("polyhedron 'self' must be a polytope") @@ 4223,7 +4227,11 @@ class Polyhedron_base(Element): L = Polyhedron(lines=[[1]]) Q = self.product(L)  H = Polyhedron(ieqs=[F_Hrep + [width], F_Hrep + [width]]) + + parent = self.parent().base_extend(width, ambient_dim=self.ambient_dim()+1) + ieqs = [F_Hrep + [width], F_Hrep + [width]] + H = parent.element_class(parent, None, [ieqs, None]) return Q.intersection(H)
Some examples:
sage: P = polytopes.cyclic_polytope(3,7, base_ring=ZZ, backend='normaliz') sage: W1 = P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0]); W1.base_ring(); W1.backend() Integer Ring 'normaliz' sage: W2 = P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0], width=5/2); W2.base_ring(); W2.backend() Rational Field 'normaliz' sage: W2 = P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0], width=4/2); W2.base_ring(); W2.backend() Rational Field 'normaliz' sage: W2.vertices() (A vertex at (0, 0, 0, 0), A vertex at (1, 1, 1, 0), A vertex at (2, 4, 8, 0), A vertex at (3, 9, 27, 3), A vertex at (3, 9, 27, 3), A vertex at (4, 16, 64, 12), A vertex at (4, 16, 64, 12), A vertex at (5, 25, 125, 30), A vertex at (5, 25, 125, 30), A vertex at (6, 36, 216, 60), A vertex at (6, 36, 216, 60))
W2
has vertices with integer coordinates
comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 19 ; followup: ↓ 25 Changed 21 months ago by
Is this ZZ.one()
really needed? Base extend should work recognize 1
as well.
Can you add base_ring=self.base_ring()
and same for backend to initialization of L. (Setting up the correct base ring right away, avoids coercion for the product to my understanding.)
Replying to ghLaisRast:
Replying to ghkliem:
What about normaliz with base ring ZZ and width 5/2 (even worse 4/2)? (I suspect backend will not be preserved).
What about the examples of #25097. Do they work?
(Sorry, still can't test it myself).
The polyhedron
H
is the responsible for changing the base ring and the backend. The following should fix the problem (up to change of base ring form ZZ to QQ, seeW2
below): def wedge(self, face, width=1): + def wedge(self, face, width=None): r""" Return the wedge over a ``face`` of the polytope ``self``. @@ 4205,6 +4205,10 @@ class Polyhedron_base(Element): sage: P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0], width=RDF(1)).base_ring() Real Double Field """ + if width is None: + width = ZZ.one() + if not self.is_compact(): raise ValueError("polyhedron 'self' must be a polytope") @@ 4223,7 +4227,11 @@ class Polyhedron_base(Element): L = Polyhedron(lines=[[1]]) Q = self.product(L)  H = Polyhedron(ieqs=[F_Hrep + [width], F_Hrep + [width]]) + + parent = self.parent().base_extend(width, ambient_dim=self.ambient_dim()+1) + ieqs = [F_Hrep + [width], F_Hrep + [width]] + H = parent.element_class(parent, None, [ieqs, None]) return Q.intersection(H)Some examples:
sage: P = polytopes.cyclic_polytope(3,7, base_ring=ZZ, backend='normaliz') sage: W1 = P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0]); W1.base_ring(); W1.backend() Integer Ring 'normaliz' sage: W2 = P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0], width=5/2); W2.base_ring(); W2.backend() Rational Field 'normaliz' sage: W2 = P.wedge(P.faces(2)[0], width=4/2); W2.base_ring(); W2.backend() Rational Field 'normaliz' sage: W2.vertices() (A vertex at (0, 0, 0, 0), A vertex at (1, 1, 1, 0), A vertex at (2, 4, 8, 0), A vertex at (3, 9, 27, 3), A vertex at (3, 9, 27, 3), A vertex at (4, 16, 64, 12), A vertex at (4, 16, 64, 12), A vertex at (5, 25, 125, 30), A vertex at (5, 25, 125, 30), A vertex at (6, 36, 216, 60), A vertex at (6, 36, 216, 60))
W2
has vertices with integer coordinates
comment:21 in reply to: ↑ 18 ; followup: ↓ 22 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
What about normaliz with base ring ZZ and width 5/2 (even worse 4/2)? (I suspect backend will not be preserved).
A note: in Sage 4/2
is rational:
sage: type(4/2) <class 'sage.rings.rational.Rational'>
and it should be like that, not to create nightmares.
Hence, taking width=4/2
, the expected behavior is really to change the base ring to rational numbers.
In Sage dividing two Integers
yields an element in the FractionField?, i.e. the rationals. It is the users responsibility to know these things. Just like 2.0
is not an integer.
That said, it is completely fine to have base_ring=QQ
but integral vertices. The goal of base ring is not to steadily represent the smallest ring in which the vertices lay in.
comment:22 in reply to: ↑ 21 ; followup: ↓ 23 Changed 21 months ago by
I was aware of 4/2
being rational.
I just find it awful to change the backend when you enter rational width.
The backend should never change unintentionally unless necessary (so if you enter width=2.0
the backend will change to cdd, which I would consider the expected behavior.)
It's just annoying when you want to use normaliz
and every operation ignores your preference and you have to change backend over and over (and even worse calculations might take longer time with ppl
, which you decided not to use in the first place).
Replying to jipilab:
Replying to ghkliem:
What about normaliz with base ring ZZ and width 5/2 (even worse 4/2)? (I suspect backend will not be preserved).
A note: in Sage
4/2
is rational:sage: type(4/2) <class 'sage.rings.rational.Rational'> }}}
and it should be like that, not to create nightmares.
Hence, taking
width=4/2
, the expected behavior is really to change the base ring to rational numbers.In Sage dividing two
Integers
yields an element in the FractionField?, i.e. the rationals. It is the users responsibility to know these things. Just like2.0
is not an integer.That said, it is completely fine to have
base_ring=QQ
but integral vertices. The goal of base ring is not to steadily represent the smallest ring in which the vertices lay in.
comment:23 in reply to: ↑ 22 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
I was aware of
4/2
being rational. I just find it awful to change the backend when you enter rational width. The backend should never change unintentionally unless necessary (so if you enterwidth=2.0
the backend will change to cdd, which I would consider the expected behavior.)It's just annoying when you want to use
normaliz
and every operation ignores your preference and you have to change backend over and over (and even worse calculations might take longer time withppl
, which you decided not to use in the first place).Replying to jipilab:
Replying to ghkliem:
What about normaliz with base ring ZZ and width 5/2 (even worse 4/2)? (I suspect backend will not be preserved).
A note: in Sage
4/2
is rational:sage: type(4/2) <class 'sage.rings.rational.Rational'> }}}
and it should be like that, not to create nightmares.
Hence, taking
width=4/2
, the expected behavior is really to change the base ring to rational numbers.In Sage dividing two
Integers
yields an element in the FractionField?, i.e. the rationals. It is the users responsibility to know these things. Just like2.0
is not an integer.That said, it is completely fine to have
base_ring=QQ
but integral vertices. The goal of base ring is not to steadily represent the smallest ring in which the vertices lay in.
Of course, of course. The only thing to do is to carry the backend to the wedge, no big deal...
comment:24 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from 417bfac337f17e93494d8f31b9031f9311cee423 to 7653fb8d21fc31d7ab34ff2c1c6da050934adef9
comment:25 in reply to: ↑ 20 ; followup: ↓ 27 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
Base extend should work recognize
1
as well.
Not anymore after the last commit I did. ZZ.one()
is really needed now. The width
should have a base_ring
method in order for the wedge to work.
Can you add
base_ring=self.base_ring()
and same for backend to initialization of L. (Setting up the correct base ring right away, avoids coercion for the product to my understanding.)
This might produce problems due to the following behavior:
sage: Polyhedron(lines=[[1]]) A 1dimensional polyhedron in ZZ^1 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line sage: Polyhedron(lines=[[1]], base_ring=AA) The empty polyhedron in AA^1 sage: Polyhedron(lines=[[1]], base_ring=AA, backend='normaliz') A 1dimensional polyhedron in AA^1 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line
The backend should now be preserved as long as this is possible. The base ring will change to the field of fractions of the current base ring, if width takes the default value 1. This is really needed because the base ring for the vertices is either the base ring for the ieqs or its field of fractions
New commits:
00f2253  polyhedron H now preserves backend now

09597bd  backend should be preserved now

7653fb8  Now should work if width is in RDF

comment:26 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:27 in reply to: ↑ 25 ; followup: ↓ 40 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghLaisRast:
Replying to ghkliem:
Base extend should work recognize
1
as well.Not anymore after the last commit I did.
ZZ.one()
is really needed now. Thewidth
should have abase_ring
method in order for the wedge to work.Can you add
base_ring=self.base_ring()
and same for backend to initialization of L. (Setting up the correct base ring right away, avoids coercion for the product to my understanding.)This might produce problems due to the following behavior:
sage: Polyhedron(lines=[[1]]) A 1dimensional polyhedron in ZZ^1 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line sage: Polyhedron(lines=[[1]], base_ring=AA) The empty polyhedron in AA^1 sage: Polyhedron(lines=[[1]], base_ring=AA, backend='normaliz') A 1dimensional polyhedron in AA^1 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line
I think that's a bug.
The backend should now be preserved as long as this is possible. The base ring will change to the field of fractions of the current base ring, if width takes the default value 1. This is really needed because the base ring for the vertices is either the base ring for the ieqs or its field of fractions
New commits:
00f2253 polyhedron H now preserves backend now
09597bd backend should be preserved now
7653fb8 Now should work if width is in RDF
comment:28 followup: ↓ 29 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Most importantly the normaliz
tests should be marked optional as pynormaliz
cannot be assumed to be installed.
Alternatively, you can switch to backend field
for the tests, this demonstrates as well that the backend is preserved.
The current code does not work with width a python integer ect.
How about parent = self.parent().base_extend(width/1, …
, I believe this works as well.
Then a default width=1
would be fine as well.
As of #27926 parent.base_extend
works with elements of rings and numbers that can be interpreted as such.
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 28 ; followups: ↓ 31 ↓ 32 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
Most importantly the
normaliz
tests should be marked optional aspynormaliz
cannot be assumed to be installed. Alternatively, you can switch to backendfield
for the tests, this demonstrates as well that the backend is preserved.
I switched to field
.
The current code does not work with width a python integer ect. How about
parent = self.parent().base_extend(width/1, …
, I believe this works as well. Then a defaultwidth=1
would be fine as well. As of #27926parent.base_extend
works with elements of rings and numbers that can be interpreted as such.
In python3 (resp. python2), x = 1/1; type(x)
gives <class 'float'>
(resp. <type 'int'>
), which does not have a .base_ring()
. I need .base_ring()
so I can find its .fraction_field()
.
comment:30 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from 7653fb8d21fc31d7ab34ff2c1c6da050934adef9 to c77c1af1ff8732512b3cd25fe6bdc4a138041c34
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
c77c1af  normaliz > field in tests

comment:31 in reply to: ↑ 29 ; followup: ↓ 33 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Replying to ghLaisRast:
Replying to ghkliem:
Most importantly the
normaliz
tests should be marked optional aspynormaliz
cannot be assumed to be installed. Alternatively, you can switch to backendfield
for the tests, this demonstrates as well that the backend is preserved.I switched to
field
.The current code does not work with width a python integer ect. How about
parent = self.parent().base_extend(width/1, …
, I believe this works as well. Then a defaultwidth=1
would be fine as well. As of #27926parent.base_extend
works with elements of rings and numbers that can be interpreted as such.In python3 (resp. python2),
x = 1/1; type(x)
gives<class 'float'>
(resp.<type 'int'>
), which does not have a.base_ring()
. I need.base_ring()
so I can find its.fraction_field()
.
Having ZZ.one()
as default instead of python 1
solves the problem for the default value. If the value of width
is not the default value, then it is a sage ring element. This solves the problem for nondefault values.
comment:32 in reply to: ↑ 29 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghLaisRast:
Replying to ghkliem:
Most importantly the
normaliz
tests should be marked optional aspynormaliz
cannot be assumed to be installed. Alternatively, you can switch to backendfield
for the tests, this demonstrates as well that the backend is preserved.I switched to
field
.The current code does not work with width a python integer ect. How about
parent = self.parent().base_extend(width/1, …
, I believe this works as well. Then a defaultwidth=1
would be fine as well. As of #27926parent.base_extend
works with elements of rings and numbers that can be interpreted as such.In python3 (resp. python2),
x = 1/1; type(x)
gives<class 'float'>
(resp.<type 'int'>
), which does not have a.base_ring()
. I need.base_ring()
so I can find its.fraction_field()
.
parent._coerce_base_ring(1/1)
gives rational field, which tells me that base extend works fine.
Don't worry about passing a ring to Polyhedra.base_extend
.
Probably you should pass 1/width
as argument base_ring
:
 parent = self.parent().base_extend(width.base_ring().fraction_field(),\ + parent = self.parent().base_extend(1/width,\ ambient_dim=self.ambient_dim()+1)
This extends the ring of parent, such that 1/width
is an element.
There is a number of occasions, where I used base_extend
this way to have polyhedral operations respect the base ring.
comment:33 in reply to: ↑ 31 ; followups: ↓ 36 ↓ 41 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghLaisRast:
Replying to ghLaisRast:
Replying to ghkliem:
Most importantly the
normaliz
tests should be marked optional aspynormaliz
cannot be assumed to be installed. Alternatively, you can switch to backendfield
for the tests, this demonstrates as well that the backend is preserved.I switched to
field
.The current code does not work with width a python integer ect. How about
parent = self.parent().base_extend(width/1, …
, I believe this works as well. Then a defaultwidth=1
would be fine as well. As of #27926parent.base_extend
works with elements of rings and numbers that can be interpreted as such.In python3 (resp. python2),
x = 1/1; type(x)
gives<class 'float'>
(resp.<type 'int'>
), which does not have a.base_ring()
. I need.base_ring()
so I can find its.fraction_field()
.Having
ZZ.one()
as default instead of python1
solves the problem for the default value. If the value ofwidth
is not the default value, then it is a sage ring element. This solves the problem for nondefault values.
No. If you write a python script that uses this method, you will have to import Integer
from sage as well to be able to pass width
.
Something as 1l
or 1L
or float(0.9)
should work as well.
Actually you need to use ZZ.one()/width
(not 1/width
), which should do the trick. Sorry about the confusion.
Alternatively, you find a method to map width
to a sage ring element and then still do the fraction field.
comment:34 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Please allow python integers (and floats) as input for width.
comment:35 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from c77c1af1ff8732512b3cd25fe6bdc4a138041c34 to ccce5f2c2fc9c63d307e799572fcce581079a569
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
ccce5f2  python ints and floats can be used for width

comment:36 in reply to: ↑ 33 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Replying to ghkliem:
Replying to ghLaisRast:
Replying to ghLaisRast:
Replying to ghkliem:
Most importantly the
normaliz
tests should be marked optional aspynormaliz
cannot be assumed to be installed. Alternatively, you can switch to backendfield
for the tests, this demonstrates as well that the backend is preserved.I switched to
field
.The current code does not work with width a python integer ect. How about
parent = self.parent().base_extend(width/1, …
, I believe this works as well. Then a defaultwidth=1
would be fine as well. As of #27926parent.base_extend
works with elements of rings and numbers that can be interpreted as such.In python3 (resp. python2),
x = 1/1; type(x)
gives<class 'float'>
(resp.<type 'int'>
), which does not have a.base_ring()
. I need.base_ring()
so I can find its.fraction_field()
.Having
ZZ.one()
as default instead of python1
solves the problem for the default value. If the value ofwidth
is not the default value, then it is a sage ring element. This solves the problem for nondefault values.No. If you write a python script that uses this method, you will have to import
Integer
from sage as well to be able to passwidth
. Something as1l
or1L
orfloat(0.9)
should work as well.Actually you need to use
ZZ.one()/width
(not1/width
), which should do the trick. Sorry about the confusion. Alternatively, you find a method to mapwidth
to a sage ring element and then still do the fraction field.
This is actually a good trick to deal with python numbers.
comment:37 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from ccce5f2c2fc9c63d307e799572fcce581079a569 to 6ba559456a3770c5517956db2d7ae1ed44a8d717
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
6ba5594  width.base_ring().fraction_field() > ZZ.one()/width

comment:38 Changed 21 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:39 Changed 21 months ago by
 Milestone set to sage8.9
comment:40 in reply to: ↑ 27 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
Replying to ghLaisRast:
Replying to ghkliem:
Base extend should work recognize
1
as well.Not anymore after the last commit I did.
ZZ.one()
is really needed now. Thewidth
should have abase_ring
method in order for the wedge to work.Can you add
base_ring=self.base_ring()
and same for backend to initialization of L. (Setting up the correct base ring right away, avoids coercion for the product to my understanding.)This might produce problems due to the following behavior:
sage: Polyhedron(lines=[[1]]) A 1dimensional polyhedron in ZZ^1 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 line sage: Polyhedron(lines=[[1]], base_ring=AA) The empty polyhedron in AA^1 sage: Polyhedron(lines=[[1]], base_ring=AA, backend='normaliz') A 1dimensional polyhedron in AA^1 defined as the convex hull of 1 vertex and 1 lineI think that's a bug.
This is definitely a bug.
comment:41 in reply to: ↑ 33 Changed 21 months ago by
Actually you need to use
ZZ.one()/width
(not1/width
), which should do the trick. Sorry about the confusion. Alternatively, you find a method to mapwidth
to a sage ring element and then still do the fraction field.
I do not get at all all this fuss.
The default of width
should be set to None
. If no value is given, the algorithm will fetch the base ring of the object and take .one()
of that base ring and continue with that value.
If the user gives a weird value for the width, that's the user's problem (the whole Polyhedron
class is based on this principle). It is not at all expected that the base ring is preserved. Only if possible (which is handled by the intersection method...
The only thing that matters is the backend. Thus the returned polyhedron should have the right backend...
I fail to see the issue here.
comment:42 Changed 21 months ago by
... in particular, I do not see at all why a base_extend
would be necessary.
comment:43 followup: ↓ 44 Changed 21 months ago by
H
should be welldefined and with correct backend. This is what we need base_extend
for.
I didn't check if we really need the value 1/width
.
I don't find a python integer to be a overly strange input.
Especially, since we already put in the effort to make our default work.
Using standard constructor for H
with backend argument can result in an error, when the backend doesn't support width
.
Standard constructor without backend argument, will not preserve backend, e.g. with self
being integral.
base_extend
does preserve backend whenever possible, which is exactly what we want.
Btw, can't we just write down all equations and inequalities right away. This saves the time of calculating double description for two (possibly large) intermediate polyhedra.
comment:44 in reply to: ↑ 43 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
H
should be welldefined and with correct backend. This is what we needbase_extend
for.
H
is a totally well defined object on whatever reasonable given value of width
that is given by the user. There is no such thing as correct backend at this stage. All you would do is try to do a good guess before intersection
will proceed to do exactly the same, but with the help of coercion. So why try to do things twice?
If the user doesn't say a word, then for sure we should just take a width from the same base ring. Then, the story with backend is irrelevant since this should be taken care of in the intersection method, and not in this specific place.
I didn't check if we really need the value
1/width
. I don't find a python integer to be a overly strange input. Especially, since we already put in the effort to make our default work.
The code is barely 15 lines long... ;)
Using standard constructor for
H
with backend argument can result in an error, when the backend doesn't supportwidth
.
Now I see what you mean. But again that business should be taken care of by intersection, and not here.
Standard constructor without backend argument, will not preserve backend, e.g. with
self
being integral.
base_extend
does preserve backend whenever possible, which is exactly what we want.
Agreed. But this is a hack, and I do not like that solution. Further, one line after H
is defined it is passed right away to intersection.
Btw, can't we just write down all equations and inequalities right away. This saves the time of calculating double description for two (possibly large) intermediate polyhedra.
Yes, and the long term idea is to have intersection do this kind of redundancy checks using normaliz
tools. (long term...) Once adding inequalities dynamically will be readily available in Sage, we can talk about it again. For now, I don't think we have to deal with this in this ticket.
In the end, the wedge is the intersection of an infinite prism over the given polyhedron (trivial to keep base ring and backend) and an infinite keil
defined by two inequalities. The base ring of this keil
is decided by the type of width
, and the backend should also be decided from the type of width
.
Then, the decision for the backend of the intersection should be delegated to .intersection
method. Why all the fuss here in wedge? If the user gives a float width and had normaliz as a backend, why should it stay normaliz? It can't!
The coercion will just figure out the right object and backend... This is already taken care of in intersection.
The following illustrates exactly the behavior that I expect to happen in wedge
:
sage: P = Polyhedron(rays=[[1,0],[0,1]],base_ring=RDF) sage: Q = Polyhedron(rays=[[1,0],[0,1]],vertices=[[1,0]],backend='normaliz') sage: P & Q A 2dimensional polyhedron in RDF^2 defined as the convex hull of 2 vertices and 1 ray sage: P.backend() 'cdd' sage: Q.backend() 'normaliz'
comment:45 followup: ↓ 46 Changed 21 months ago by
The problem is not float. A float is going to change backend to cdd
, which is fine.
Let P
with parent Polyhedra_normaliz_ZZ
and Q
with parent Polyhedra_ppl_QQ
then coercion will lead the intersection to be an element of Polyhedra_ppl_QQ
, because there is a map in exactly one direction.
Hence, intersection might change the backend (it might prefer backend of self
or other
depending on the involved rings).
However, I would expect a user to create all polyhedra with his preferred backend, so that shouldn't cause issues.
Now, if we create a polyhedron H
with default backend (and not what the user chose as backend of self
) this might cause the backend
to change. I think one could only prevent this by not using coercion for intersection.
comment:46 in reply to: ↑ 45 ; followup: ↓ 47 Changed 21 months ago by
Now, if we create a polyhedron
H
with default backend (and not what the user chose as backend ofself
) this might cause thebackend
to change. I think one could only prevent this by not using coercion for intersection.
I thought that the solution since the beginning is to query the backend of self
and apply it to H
. If it fails, well this is a bad day for the user, because the backend will have to change whatsoever, due to the type of input, which we should trust is what the user wants.
Hence, try to create H
with the backend of self, it is fails, just create H
using the type of the given width.
I would let intersection
alone here and still trust it to do what is right when the time comes.
In the end, that the backend is not preserved by an operation which is not intended to, is not the end of the world. Is it?
comment:47 in reply to: ↑ 46 ; followup: ↓ 49 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to jipilab:
Now, if we create a polyhedron
H
with default backend (and not what the user chose as backend ofself
) this might cause thebackend
to change. I think one could only prevent this by not using coercion for intersection.I thought that the solution since the beginning is to query the backend of
self
and apply it toH
. If it fails, well this is a bad day for the user, because the backend will have to change whatsoever, due to the type of input, which we should trust is what the user wants.Hence, try to create
H
with the backend of self, it is fails, just createH
using the type of the given width.
This is exactly what base_extend
does. It changes the parent as little as possible. Of course you can also use the constructor with try
and except
, which is what base_extend
does (but cached).
I would let
intersection
alone here and still trust it to do what is right when the time comes.
It will always prefer the backend of the polyhedron with larger ring due to coercion.
In the end, that the backend is not preserved by an operation which is not intended to, is not the end of the world. Is it?
It is a pain, if it could have been prevented. If working with large polyhedra, which are manageable with normaliz
and take forever with ppl
you don't want the backend to change.
To ask a user to to base_extend
before wedge over face is very sudle.
comment:48 Changed 21 months ago by
By the way, I don't really care how one initialized H
. I just think it should have the backend of self
if width
admits it.
comment:49 in reply to: ↑ 47 ; followup: ↓ 50 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
Replying to jipilab:
Now, if we create a polyhedron
H
with default backend (and not what the user chose as backend ofself
) this might cause thebackend
to change. I think one could only prevent this by not using coercion for intersection.I thought that the solution since the beginning is to query the backend of
self
and apply it toH
. If it fails, well this is a bad day for the user, because the backend will have to change whatsoever, due to the type of input, which we should trust is what the user wants.Hence, try to create
H
with the backend of self, it is fails, just createH
using the type of the given width.This is exactly what
base_extend
does. It changes the parent as little as possible. Of course you can also use the constructor withtry
andexcept
, which is whatbase_extend
does (but cached).
Ok, fine. But I would not do this business with 1/width
, etc.
I would let
intersection
alone here and still trust it to do what is right when the time comes.It will always prefer the backend of the polyhedron with larger ring due to coercion.
In the end, that the backend is not preserved by an operation which is not intended to, is not the end of the world. Is it?
It is a pain, if it could have been prevented. If working with large polyhedra, which are manageable with
normaliz
and take forever withppl
you don't want the backend to change.
Obviously.
To ask a user to to
base_extend
before wedge over face is very sudle.
Sudle? I am not sure to understand what you mean. Do you have any concrete suggestion for the code now?
comment:50 in reply to: ↑ 49 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to jipilab:
Replying to ghkliem:
Replying to jipilab: To ask a user to to
base_extend
before wedge over face is very sudle.Sudle? I am not sure to understand what you mean. Do you have any concrete suggestion for the code now?
In many cases polyhedra will by default be set up with base ring ZZ
like in
sage: P = polytopes.simplex(backend='normaliz'); type(P) <class 'sage.geometry.polyhedron.parent.Polyhedra_ZZ_normaliz_with_category.element_class'>
If a user wants to keep his backend and we ask him to change the base ring to QQ
before doing wedge over face, this is confusing.
comment:51 followup: ↓ 52 Changed 20 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
A few comments:
 In the docstring
indicates how wide the resulted wedge should be
: I would say:This parameter specifies how wide the wedge will be
.
A (bounded) Polyhedron object
>A (bounded) polyhedron
 Please provide me a simple argument as to why the field of fraction of the base ring should be used "by default" (i.e. when the width is 1). I would say that the resulting base ring should be determined by the constructor. Yes, this will depend on the input polytope, which is fine. Further, yes, the backend should be preserved if possible, which simply means that one should pass it to the constructor. What do I see wrong?
Because we are using Q.intersection(H)
, on top of what is done before, it is going to do a coercion to find the appropriate thing to do. I do not really understand why we force the parent of H
to be the fraction field if it might not be necessary.
 The text inside of the TEST is misleading since even if we give a different value to width, the base ring *will* change. ... so again, I am confused about how this is done. Further, the tests should provide a bit more demonstration as to how it preserves the backend (please show at least how it preserves 2 backends, with appropriate base rings).
comment:52 in reply to: ↑ 51 ; followup: ↓ 53 Changed 20 months ago by
Replying to jipilab:
A few comments:
 In the docstring
indicates how wide the resulted wedge should be
: I would say:This parameter specifies how wide the wedge will be
.
A (bounded) Polyhedron object
>A (bounded) polyhedron
 Please provide me a simple argument as to why the field of fraction of the base ring should be used "by default" (i.e. when the width is 1). I would say that the resulting base ring should be determined by the constructor. Yes, this will depend on the input polytope, which is fine. Further, yes, the backend should be preserved if possible, which simply means that one should pass it to the constructor. What do I see wrong?
I agree that is makes no sense to use the field of fractions, when width
is 1. I guess we should use the field of fractions whenever width
is not a unit.
If we just pass the backend
to the constructor, we get an error if the value of width
is not handled by the current backend. Is this the desired behavior? If you don't like the current setup, we can also just use does_backend_handle_base_ring
from parent.py (its basically a cached version of doing try ... except
for the constructor).
comment:53 in reply to: ↑ 52 Changed 20 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
Replying to jipilab:
A few comments:
 In the docstring
indicates how wide the resulted wedge should be
: I would say:This parameter specifies how wide the wedge will be
.
A (bounded) Polyhedron object
>A (bounded) polyhedron
 Please provide me a simple argument as to why the field of fraction of the base ring should be used "by default" (i.e. when the width is 1). I would say that the resulting base ring should be determined by the constructor. Yes, this will depend on the input polytope, which is fine. Further, yes, the backend should be preserved if possible, which simply means that one should pass it to the constructor. What do I see wrong?
I agree that is makes no sense to use the field of fractions, when
width
is 1. I guess we should use the field of fractions wheneverwidth
is not a unit.If we just pass the
backend
to the constructor, we get an error if the value ofwidth
is not handled by the current backend. Is this the desired behavior?
I guess not.
If you don't like the current setup, we can also just use
does_backend_handle_base_ring
from parent.py (its basically a cached version of doingtry ... except
for the constructor).
Yes, to me that's probably the best intermediate to proceed this way and let the intersection deal with the rest.
comment:54 Changed 20 months ago by
 Branch changed from public/27973 to public/27973new
 Commit changed from 6ba559456a3770c5517956db2d7ae1ed44a8d717 to 73dac038bb83c51824d02130c9d4f1930607b9f3
comment:55 Changed 20 months ago by
 Commit changed from 73dac038bb83c51824d02130c9d4f1930607b9f3 to 38944ad77e0a7ca760e97fcef85f2b957fe83eba
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
38944ad  simplified construction of H, small changes mostly in the documentation

comment:56 Changed 20 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Tried to simplify construction of H
.
Btw, I also tried to preserve the base_ring
(when width is 1), but this did not work for the test in line 4205.
comment:57 followup: ↓ 58 Changed 20 months ago by
The sentence:
+ The base_ring will change to the field of fractions of the current
+ base_ring, unless width forces a different ring.
is still confusing as it says that the base ring always will change to the field of fractions. What if it stays as ZZ? (which is possible). This should be fixed...
The rest seems to be good.
comment:58 in reply to: ↑ 57 ; followup: ↓ 59 Changed 20 months ago by
Replying to jipilab:
The sentence:
+ The base_ring will change to the field of fractions of the current + base_ring, unless width forces a different ring.
is still confusing as it says that the base ring always will change to the field of fractions. What if it stays as ZZ? (which is
I don't think so. H
is constructed from inequalities without specifying the basering. In this case the constructor coerces the base rings of all values and then takes the fraction field. If you want ZZ
as basering when constructing a polyhedron from inequalities, you need to specify it for the constructor.
This should be fixed...
The rest seems to be good.
comment:59 in reply to: ↑ 58 Changed 20 months ago by
Replying to ghkliem:
Replying to jipilab:
The sentence:
+ The base_ring will change to the field of fractions of the current + base_ring, unless width forces a different ring.
is still confusing as it says that the base ring always will change to the field of fractions. What if it stays as ZZ? (which is
I don't think so.
H
is constructed from inequalities without specifying the basering. In this case the constructor coerces the base rings of all values and then takes the fraction field. If you wantZZ
as basering when constructing a polyhedron from inequalities, you need to specify it for the constructor.
Ok... fine.
comment:60 Changed 20 months ago by
Is this good to go now?
comment:61 Changed 20 months ago by
 Reviewers set to JeanPhilippe Labbé
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:62 Changed 20 months ago by
 Branch changed from public/27973new to 38944ad77e0a7ca760e97fcef85f2b957fe83eba
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
As the Sage8.8 release milestone is pending, we should delete the sage8.8 milestone for tickets that are not actively being worked on or that still require significant work to move forward. If you feel that this ticket should be included in the next Sage release at the soonest please set its milestone to the next release milestone (sage8.9).