#28554 closed enhancement (fixed)

Scalar Field Restrictions

Reported by: gh-DeRhamSource Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: sage-9.0
Component: geometry Keywords: manifolds, scalar fields
Cc: tscrim, egourgoulhon Merged in:
Authors: Michael Jung Reviewers: Eric Gourgoulhon
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: a126d91 (Commits) Commit: a126d9187fed8552fd14351248f54704dac26737
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by gh-DeRhamSource)

How is a scalar field implemented which is piecewisely defined with different expressions in one particular chart?

Take for instance a scalar field f on the real line with standard "top" chart x, defined via f(x)=0 for x<-1, f(x)=x+1 for -1<=x<0, f(x)=1-x for 0<=x<1 and f(x)=0 for x>=1. Currently, this is solved by using

f = M.scalar_field( unit_step(x + 1)*unit_step(1 - x)*(1 - abs(x)) )

(see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28519#comment:46).

This solution is quite unhandy and becomes even more so for more complicated scalar fields.

This ticket is part of the metaticket #28519.

This ticket includes:

  • display method modified in such a way that all distinct expressions are shown (a small slowdown in computation time)
  • set_restriction method added smilar to tensor fields

Change History (22)

comment:1 Changed 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

Eric, in the ticket mentioned above, I suggested to display all known expressions (on the greatest domain) and compute new expressions only if a particular chart is stated. It seems, there is no big difference to the previous code then, and the additional computation time might be negligible. What do you say? Is this a good compromise for you? Moreover, this approach seems to be the easiest one.

Or one implements an additional flag display_all for which the user is aware of additional computation time when using it?

However, do you have an example for me with much computation time to test my current algorithm how long it takes? Then, I can compare computation times. I have a feeling that the current algorithm is not that much slower than before because it starts from the top charts -- what happens anyway and, I guess, it only makes a significant difference if the scalar field is picewisely defined.

Last edited 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource (previous) (diff)

comment:2 Changed 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

  • Branch set to u/gh-DeRhamSource/scalar_field_restrictions

comment:3 Changed 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

  • Commit set to 0c645ca987eb13c63cfc7841aac1c4d320eec253
  • Description modified (diff)

New commits:

0c645ca'set_restriction' added + 'display' modified + naming modified

comment:4 Changed 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:5 Changed 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

I compared computation times.

Before:

...$ ./sage -t src/sage/manifolds/scalarfield.py 
too few successful tests, not using stored timings
Running doctests with ID 2019-10-04-19-03-38-e810720b.
Git branch: scalar_field_restrictions
Using --optional=build,dochtml,memlimit,python2,sage
Doctesting 1 file.
sage -t src/sage/manifolds/scalarfield.py
    [715 tests, 31.77 s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All tests passed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total time for all tests: 32.0 seconds
    cpu time: 33.2 seconds
    cumulative wall time: 31.8 seconds

With this ticket:

...$ ./sage -t src/sage/manifolds/scalarfield.py
too few successful tests, not using stored timings
Running doctests with ID 2019-10-04-20-45-12-df0ec794.
Git branch: scalar_field_restrictions
Using --optional=build,dochtml,memlimit,python2,sage
Doctesting 1 file.
sage -t src/sage/manifolds/scalarfield.py
    [735 tests, 34.59 s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All tests passed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total time for all tests: 34.8 seconds
    cpu time: 35.9 seconds
    cumulative wall time: 34.6 seconds

What do you say?

comment:6 Changed 12 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from 0c645ca987eb13c63cfc7841aac1c4d320eec253 to b85f6ec46f9878c48ed4d8843123b46b844cb252

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

b85f6ecTypos fixed

comment:7 Changed 12 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from b85f6ec46f9878c48ed4d8843123b46b844cb252 to 1d68a1f83e9fbb0135077e5e0ec60be0f5beb141

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

1d68a1f'set_restriction' added + some restriction modifications

comment:8 Changed 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:9 Changed 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:10 Changed 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

Please give me a short feedback so that I can work further on this.

This ticket is essential for my future implementation of characteristic classes (due to the set_restriction method).

Last edited 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource (previous) (diff)

comment:11 Changed 12 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

  • Status changed from new to needs_info

comment:12 Changed 11 months ago by egourgoulhon

Sorry for the delay. The ticket looks good; it clearly improves the treatment of restrictions of scalar fields. I have a few remarks:

  • Regarding the change in display(), I agree that your solution is a good compromise
  • I guess the method _new_instance() has been introduced in scalar fields by analogy of what is done for tensor fields. However in the present case, this method is quite trivial, since it returns a mere type(self)(self.parent()). IMHO this adds some code complexity (a new method) for not a big gain; for someone reading the code,
       res = type(self)(self.parent())
    
    is at least as clear as
       res = self._new_instance()
    

Moreover the latter involves one extra function call. Therefore I would suggest to revert this change.

  • When you perform significant changes/additions to some file, I would suggest that you add your name to the AUTHORS field and copyright statement. For instance in src/sage/mnifolds/scalarfield.py, you could add to the AUTHORS field something like
    - Michael Jung (2019) : improve restrictions; make ``display()`` show all
      distinct expressions
    
    The same holds for #28628 and other tickets of #28519.

comment:13 Changed 11 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from 1d68a1f83e9fbb0135077e5e0ec60be0f5beb141 to 512d2b1a31d7491e5ecce1bb167b74830929b06d

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

4e999f1Merge branch 'develop' into t/28554/scalar_field_restrictions
512d2b1Revert '_new_instance' + authorship

comment:14 Changed 11 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

  • Authors set to Michael Jung
  • Status changed from needs_info to needs_review

Thanks! There we go. :)

comment:15 Changed 11 months ago by egourgoulhon

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

With Sage 9.0.beta3, there are two failed doctests:

**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/manifolds/section.py", line 971, in sage.manifolds.section.Section.add_expr_from_subdomain
Failed example:
    sorted(s._components.values())[0]._comp[(1,)].display()
Expected:
    S^2 --> R
    on U: (x, y) |--> x
Got:
    S^2 --> R
    on U: (x, y) |--> x
    on W: (u, v) |--> u/(u^2 + v^2)
**********************************************************************

**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/manifolds/differentiable/pseudo_riemannian_submanifold.py", line 1517, in sage.manifolds.differentiable.pseudo_riemannian_submanifold.?.principal_curvatures
Failed example:
    N.principal_curvatures(stereoN)[0].display()  # long time
Expected:
    k_0: N --> R
    on U: x |--> -1
Got:
    k_0: N --> R
    on U: x |--> -1
    on W: y |--> -1
**********************************************************************

comment:16 Changed 11 months ago by egourgoulhon

Btw, thanks for reverting _new_instance().

comment:17 Changed 11 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from 512d2b1a31d7491e5ecce1bb167b74830929b06d to a126d9187fed8552fd14351248f54704dac26737

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

763f69cMerge branch 'develop' into t/28554/scalar_field_restrictions
a126d91Doctest errors fixed

comment:18 Changed 11 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

I totally missed that we are in beta3 already!

Please check once again.

Thanks for your effort so far! :)

comment:19 Changed 11 months ago by gh-DeRhamSource

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

comment:20 Changed 11 months ago by egourgoulhon

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

Everything is fine now. Thanks.

comment:21 Changed 11 months ago by egourgoulhon

  • Reviewers set to Eric Gourgoulhon

comment:22 Changed 11 months ago by vbraun

  • Branch changed from u/gh-DeRhamSource/scalar_field_restrictions to a126d9187fed8552fd14351248f54704dac26737
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.