Opened 2 years ago
Closed 2 years ago
#28645 closed defect (fixed)
Error in precision of Tate elliptic curves over Qp
Reported by:  wuthrich  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage9.0 
Component:  elliptic curves  Keywords:  Tate curve 
Cc:  Merged in:  
Authors:  Chris Wuthrich  Reviewers:  Edgar Costa 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  9c537fb (Commits, GitHub, GitLab)  Commit:  9c537fbbeb0f6106cc637d5aa6e1cfff9437dd4f 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description
The optional precision arguments for Tate's elliptic curves are incorrectly implemented. For many functions, increasing the precision does not increase the precision of the output.
Change History (12)
comment:1 Changed 2 years ago by
 Branch set to u/wuthrich/tate_curve_prec_28645
 Commit set to ff01d1ca4707b459247a9dd840d808d6b8c42b05
comment:2 Changed 2 years ago by
 Status changed from new to needs_review
Here an example of what was wrong
sage: E = EllipticCurve("126a5") sage: Eq = E.tate_curve(2) sage: R = Qp(2,30) sage: u = R(2019) sage: Eq.parametrisation_onto_original_curve(u, prec=30) (2^2 + 2^1 + 1 + 2 + 2^3 + 2^7 + 2^8 + 2^15 + O(2^18) : 2^3 + 2^2 + 2^1 + 2 + 2^2 + 2^5 + 2^6 + 2^7 + 2^9 + 2^11 + 2^14 + 2^15 + O(2^16) : 1 + O(2^30))
The precision drops to 20. Now fixed returns:
(2^2 + 2^1 + 1 + 2 + 2^3 + 2^7 + 2^8 + 2^15 + 2^18 + 2^19 + 2^20 + 2^21 + 2^26 + O(2^28) : 2^3 + 2^2 + 2^1 + 2 + 2^2 + 2^5 + 2^6 + 2^7 + 2^9 + 2^11 + 2^14 + 2^15 + 2^19 + 2^20 + 2^23 + 2^24 + 2^25 + O(2^26) : 1 + O(2^30))
comment:3 Changed 2 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
FYI,
src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_tate_curve.py:233: local variable 'n' is assigned to but never used
comment:4 Changed 2 years ago by
 Commit changed from ff01d1ca4707b459247a9dd840d808d6b8c42b05 to 9c537fbbeb0f6106cc637d5aa6e1cfff9437dd4f
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
9c537fb  del one useless var

comment:5 Changed 2 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Delete that line.
comment:6 Changed 2 years ago by
I'm sorry, but can't fully test this at the moment, so I can't give you examples, but I spotted a couple of issues (not introduced by you), but propagate through the rest:
1 One is always hitting an AttributeError
in the try
block in def parameter
, as it should be calling precision_absolute
. Also, the try
block is a bit sad, as it should be just triggered by __init__
. Perhaps a getattr(self, '_q', None)
would make more sense.
2 Shouldn't we be checking for precision_relative
? Given that we are always working with relative precision.
3 Shouldn't parameter return a value with the right precision? If not, we might need to work more and get results with more precision than expected.
4 Similar to the previous item, we should consider replacing R = qE.parent()
by R = Qp(self._p, prec=prec)
in def curve
.
comment:7 Changed 2 years ago by
You may be right that there are more things that should be improved in that file. The purpose of this ticket is to correct a bug: I can increase the precision of the output by increasing the parameter prec. That was broken.
My proposal is that this is done on this ticket. Then we can open a further ticket to improve things.
In particular, I can get rid of try blocks (this is early sage when there were try blocks everywhere). We could also think about getting provable correct precisions out. Honestly, I have little interest in doing so, but I would be willing to go through the file and make the necessary changes. But I doubt that anyone uses the output in that way. We should at least, give a warning that it is not provable relative/absolute precision.
If we want to do everything on this ticket, it is likely to drag for months and may get abandoned when this simple quick fix would have improved sage.
comment:8 Changed 2 years ago by
I agree with you, you should not fix this now.
Regarding the original bug, is this an expected output, or should one raise an exception?
sage: E = EllipticCurve("126a5") sage: Eq = E.tate_curve(2) sage: R = Qp(2,30) sage: u = R(2019) sage: Eq.parametrisation_onto_original_curve(u, prec=60) (2^2 + 2^1 + 1 + 2 + 2^3 + 2^7 + 2^8 + 2^15 + 2^18 + 2^19 + 2^20 + 2^21 + 2^26 + O(2^28) : 2^3 + 2^2 + 2^1 + 2 + 2^2 + 2^5 + 2^6 + 2^7 + 2^9 + 2^11 + 2^14 + 2^15 + 2^19 + 2^20 + 2^23 + 2^24 + 2^25 + O(2^26) : 1 + O(2^60))
comment:9 Changed 2 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Ignore my comment, I will just move that to a new ticket
comment:10 Changed 2 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Reviewer name is missing...
comment:11 Changed 2 years ago by
 Reviewers set to Edgar Costa
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
comment:12 Changed 2 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/wuthrich/tate_curve_prec_28645 to 9c537fbbeb0f6106cc637d5aa6e1cfff9437dd4f
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
New commits:
precision for tate curves