Add symplectic structures

[gh-tobiasdiez]

This ticket implements the basics of symplectic structures, like Poisson brackets and Hamiltonian vector fields.

TODO (as follow-up tickets):

• Extract general coordinate stuff from EuclideanSpace to new class VectorSpace, and let SymplecticVectorSpace derive from VectorSpace

[gh-mjungmath]

In my humble opinion, I think the very first step should be to establish a Poisson manifold. This is much more general, i.e. symplectic structures / manifolds are special cases of them. Since none of these are implemented yet, it is much easier to start with the more general setup.

I would like to get some initial feedback, before I cleanup the code and documentation.

I am still busy with other things, but as soon as I have some free time, I could go through your code. However, it would be good to at least remove unneccessary methods (like e.g. hodge_star or sqrt_abs_det) to make the code much more readable and seek your new features immediately.

I noticed that you already added typing. I think, this belongs to another ticket, namely #29775, and should be discussed there before we apply it to new things. There is still this issue with pyflakes and it seems there are still different opinions.

For me SymplecticFormParal is only a implementation detail, so I don't actually want to expose it to the user. Any ideas? (probably needs some modifications in the tensorfield.restrict method).

The use of ...Paral is of course necessary since structures on manifolds are "glued together" via parallelizable parts. I agree in so far that there is no explicit need to expose it to the user since this is all managed via methods in manifold.py, that's right. Howver, in my opinion, there's also nothing wrong about it. Since this is a general problem not only restricted to symplectic forms, I suggest you open another ticket if you want to discuss it.

[gh-mjungmath]

I swiftly overviewed your code. It's a nice addition! However, I have some comments:

• I think, this is redundant:

           PseudoRiemannianMetric._del_derived(self)
  +        self._del_inverse()
   
       def _del_inverse(self):
  

The method _del_inverse is already invoked in PseudoRiemannianMetric._del_derived.

• I am not sure that sharp and flat are proper names for lowering/raising the index w.r.t. a symplectic structure, I presume they are reserved for metrics only. raise and lower sounds more appropriate to me.

• In my opinion this change is not necessary either:

       """
  -    def __init__(self, n, name, field, structure, base_manifold=None,
  +    def __init__(self, n, name, field='real', structure=RealDifferentialStructure(), base_manifold=None,
                    diff_degree=infinity, latex_name=None, start_index=0,
                    category=None, unique_tag=None):
  

The default input is already managed by the factory method Manifolds. And in my opinion, it should stay there for maintenance reasons.

• It would be good to add a new category for symplectic manifolds and also a new structure in manifolds/structure.py. Besides, I am not sure, is it possible to combine structures? Symplectic and pseudo-Riemannian structures certainly do not exclude each other. If not, I think this is something we should attack at some point. The more structures we allow, the more flexible the framework has to be.

• I still think that starting with Poisson manifolds is a more reasonable approach. Anyway, someone always has to have the time to do it.

[egourgoulhon]

Symplectic structures are certainly a nice addition to Sage! Thank you for contributing to this.

I gave a look to the code, but I have to say that in the current state, it is hardly readable for me, because the docstrings are simply copied from other files, without any cleaning nor adaptation of the doctests to the new features introduced here. Can I suggest that you move forward and provide a first version with some minimal documentation and doctests, cleaning out what does not pertain to this ticket.

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

For me SymplecticFormParal is only a implementation detail, so I don't actually want to expose it to the user. Any ideas? (probably needs some modifications in the tensorfield.restrict method).

The use of ...Paral is of course necessary since structures on manifolds are "glued together" via parallelizable parts. I agree in so far that there is no explicit need to expose it to the user since this is all managed via methods in manifold.py, that's right. Howver, in my opinion, there's also nothing wrong about it. Since this is a general problem not only restricted to symplectic forms, I suggest you open another ticket if you want to discuss it.

SymplecticFormParal is not exposed to the user, since the interface should not be via the class names but rather via a method M.symplectic_form() of the manifold M, which returns a SymplecticFormParal if M is parallelizable and a SymplecticForm otherwise.

Besides, I agree with Michael's remarks in comment:2.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to egourgoulhon:

Can I suggest that you move forward and provide a first version with some minimal documentation and doctests, cleaning out what does not pertain to this ticket.

+1

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll cleanup and improve the code accordingly. I might need a couple of weeks for this however as I'm currently quite busy.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Thanks for the initial reviews!

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

I swiftly overviewed your code. It's a nice addition! However, I have some comments:

• I think, this is redundant:

           PseudoRiemannianMetric._del_derived(self)
  +        self._del_inverse()
   
       def _del_inverse(self):
  

The method _del_inverse is already invoked in PseudoRiemannianMetric._del_derived.

Agreed! Not sure why I added it in the first place, but I've now reverted this change.

• I am not sure that sharp and flat are proper names for lowering/raising the index w.r.t. a symplectic structure, I presume they are reserved for metrics only. raise and lower sounds more appropriate to me.

The terminology sharp and flat (as well as musical isomorphisms) is standard in symplectic geometry, too. See for example Abraham Marsden Foundations of Mechanics.

• In my opinion this change is not necessary either:

       """
  -    def __init__(self, n, name, field, structure, base_manifold=None,
  +    def __init__(self, n, name, field='real', structure=RealDifferentialStructure(), base_manifold=None,
                    diff_degree=infinity, latex_name=None, start_index=0,
                    category=None, unique_tag=None):
  

The default input is already managed by the factory method Manifolds. And in my opinion, it should stay there for maintenance reasons.

I think, it's strange if the constructor requires more data than actually is required. Although that might be a matter of taste, but I find M = TopologicalManifold(2, 'M') more readable than M = Manifold(2, 'M', structure='topological').

• It would be good to add a new category for symplectic manifolds and also a new structure in manifolds/structure.py. Besides, I am not sure, is it possible to combine structures? Symplectic and pseudo-Riemannian structures certainly do not exclude each other. If not, I think this is something we should attack at some point. The more structures we allow, the more flexible the framework has to be.

Agreed! But I would like to leave the categorical questions to a follow-up ticket!

• I still think that starting with Poisson manifolds is a more reasonable approach. Anyway, someone always has to have the time to do it.

I'm working on it.

[gh-mjungmath]

• I am not sure that sharp and flat are proper names for lowering/raising the index w.r.t. a symplectic structure, I presume they are reserved for metrics only. raise and lower sounds more appropriate to me.

The terminology sharp and flat (as well as musical isomorphisms) is standard in symplectic geometry, too. See for example Abraham Marsden Foundations of Mechanics.

You have a page? I only find the terminology 'lowering' and 'raising'.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

In the second edition, its definition 3.2.1 (p. 174, chapter about symplectic geometry). They don't write "sharp" or "flat" as words, but use the musical symbols.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

Although that might be a matter of taste, but I find M = TopologicalManifold(2, 'M') more readable than M = Manifold(2, 'M', structure='topological').

I agree, but the reason for using the function Manifold instead of a direct call to a specific class, like TopologicalManifold, is to not clutter Sage's global namespace, which is already very large. Likewise, at the user level, one has to use Manifold(..., structure='symplectic') instead of SymplecticManifold(...).

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. Last 10 new commits:

​13216c1	Fix multiarch for shared libraries
​d9f36dc	Don't use Python 3.8 syntax
​94e20c7	Revert some of the changes
​6dd6e5c	Fix compilation
​eceefb3	Remove string wrap
​d345bff	Fix test
​c47c4bf	Correct indent
​360b312	Merge branch 'public/build/multiarchsimple' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into public/manifolds/symplectic
​2f2997c	Revert del_inverse change
​edc41c5	Rework symplectic form, and introduce Poisson structures

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Ok, makes sense!

I've continued working on it, introduced Poisson structures, wrote most of the documentation and introduced a few tests. It's not yet finished, but if you have a spare minute I would like to get feedback.

A few questions:

• I get the following error message. What's the origin, and what do I have to do to make it work?

src/sage/manifolds/differentiable/symplectic_form.py:973: in poisson
    if frame not in self._poisson._components:
sage/structure/element.pyx:493: in sage.structure.element.Element.__getattr__
    ???
sage/structure/element.pyx:506: in sage.structure.element.Element.getattr_from_category
    ???
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

>   ???
E   AttributeError: 'SymplecticVectorSpace_with_category' object has no attribute '__custom_name'

• I'm still somewhat confused by the subclasses that handle the structure on a parallelizable manifold. For example, in the symplectic form class I create the Poisson tensor, give it a name etc.

  poisson_name = f'poisson_{self._name}'
  poisson_latex_name = f'{self._latex_name}^{{-1}}'
  self._poisson = PoissonTensorField(self._vmodule, poisson_name, poisson_latex_name)
  

How do I make sure that it derives from TensorFieldParal if the manifold is parallelizable? I can of course put the same code in SymplecticFormParal and replace PoissonTensorField by PoissonTensorFieldParal but this appears to be somewhat subopmimal.

Moreover, do I have to copy-paste the documentation from the parent class, or what is the convention?

• How do I obtain a general function on a manifold? On a vector space M, I can do something like

  q, p = M.cartesian_coordinates()[:]
  f = M.scalar_field(function('f')(q,p), name='f')
  

but what would be the version on a sphere (in such a way that the code works for M being a vector space and a sphere)?

• Since the hodge star operator makes sense also with respect to a symplectic form, I would propose to move the current method from Metric to DifferentialForm: DifferentialForm.hodge_star(Metric|SymplecticForm) (with an alias in Metric and SymplecticForm). Opinions?

• What is the best way to test if two differential forms are equal (including / except of their name)?

Thanks!

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

• I'm still somewhat confused by the subclasses that handle the structure on a parallelizable manifold. For example, in the symplectic form class I create the Poisson tensor, give it a name etc.

  poisson_name = f'poisson_{self._name}'
  poisson_latex_name = f'{self._latex_name}^{{-1}}'
  self._poisson = PoissonTensorField(self._vmodule, poisson_name, poisson_latex_name)
  

How do I make sure that it derives from TensorFieldParal if the manifold is parallelizable?

You should construct the Poisson tensor from the module of vector fields on the manifold, not by a direct call to PoissonTensorField, see the example of DifferentiableManifold.metric() in src/sage/manifods/differentiable/manifold.py.

Moreover, do I have to copy-paste the documentation from the parent class, or what is the convention?

I don't understand the question, sorry. Could you rephrase it?

• How do I obtain a general function on a manifold? On a vector space M, I can do something like

  q, p = M.cartesian_coordinates()[:]
  f = M.scalar_field(function('f')(q,p), name='f')
  

but what would be the version on a sphere (in such a way that the code works for M being a vector space and a sphere)?

The symbolic functions created by function(...) are functions of coordinates on a given chart; so to construct a generic function on a manifold, you have to pass a dictionary with as many charts as necessary to cover the manifold:

   f = M.scalar_field({X1: function('f_1')(q1, p1), X2: function('f_2')(q2, p2),...})

where X1 is the chart with coordinates (q1, p1), etc.

• Since the hodge star operator makes sense also with respect to a symplectic form, I would propose to move the current method from Metric to DifferentialForm: DifferentialForm.hodge_star(Metric|SymplecticForm) (with an alias in Metric and SymplecticForm). Opinions?

The Hodge star is already in DifferentialForm: it is called hodge_dual() there and its code is simply return metric.hodge_star(self).

• What is the best way to test if two differential forms are equal (including / except of their name)?

I would say simply a == b. This is actually computing a - b (in an efficient way, using the full antisymmetry of a and b's components) and tests whether the result is zero.

A question from my side: why is this ticket depending on #30901 and #30748 ? In the ticket description you write Please ignore the dependencies, these are just there so that I can work locally on my PC. This looks somewhat odd...

Maybe this is related, but the ticket branch contains the following modified files:

-rw-r--r--	.gitignore	9	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/all.py	6	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/all_cmdline.py	1	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/env.py	76	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/libs/gap/util.pyx	1		
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/libs/singular/singular.pyx	11	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/misc/lazy_import.pyx	69	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/misc/startup_guard.py	25			
-rw-r--r--	src/test.py	64	

Do they really pertain to this ticket?

[git]

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

​c6fb9c6

Fix tests

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to egourgoulhon:

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

• I'm still somewhat confused by the subclasses that handle the structure on a parallelizable manifold. For example, in the symplectic form class I create the Poisson tensor, give it a name etc.

  poisson_name = f'poisson_{self._name}'
  poisson_latex_name = f'{self._latex_name}^{{-1}}'
  self._poisson = PoissonTensorField(self._vmodule, poisson_name, poisson_latex_name)
  

How do I make sure that it derives from TensorFieldParal if the manifold is parallelizable?

You should construct the Poisson tensor from the module of vector fields on the manifold, not by a direct call to PoissonTensorField, see the example of DifferentiableManifold.metric() in src/sage/manifods/differentiable/manifold.py.

Ok, thanks! That makes sense indeed and worked.

Moreover, do I have to copy-paste the documentation from the parent class, or what is the convention?

I don't understand the question, sorry. Could you rephrase it?

If I implement a method in say PoissonTensorFieldParal that overrides a method in PoissonTensorField, do I have to add documentation/tests/examples to the method in PoissonTensorFieldParal?` (given that the signature of the method is exactly the same)? I think sphinx normally copies the documentation given in the parent class.

• How do I obtain a general function on a manifold? On a vector space M, I can do something like

  q, p = M.cartesian_coordinates()[:]
  f = M.scalar_field(function('f')(q,p), name='f')
  

but what would be the version on a sphere (in such a way that the code works for M being a vector space and a sphere)?

The symbolic functions created by function(...) are functions of coordinates on a given chart; so to construct a generic function on a manifold, you have to pass a dictionary with as many charts as necessary to cover the manifold:

   f = M.scalar_field({X1: function('f_1')(q1, p1), X2: function('f_2')(q2, p2),...})

where X1 is the chart with coordinates (q1, p1), etc.

That worked! Merci!

• Since the hodge star operator makes sense also with respect to a symplectic form, I would propose to move the current method from Metric to DifferentialForm: DifferentialForm.hodge_star(Metric|SymplecticForm) (with an alias in Metric and SymplecticForm). Opinions?

The Hodge star is already in DifferentialForm: it is called hodge_dual() there and its code is simply return metric.hodge_star(self).

• What is the best way to test if two differential forms are equal (including / except of their name)?

I would say simply a == b. This is actually computing a - b (in an efficient way, using the full antisymmetry of a and b's components) and tests whether the result is zero.

That worked as well!

A question from my side: why is this ticket depending on #30901 and #30748 ? In the ticket description you write Please ignore the dependencies, these are just there so that I can work locally on my PC. This looks somewhat odd...

Maybe this is related, but the ticket branch contains the following modified files:

-rw-r--r--	.gitignore	9	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/all.py	6	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/all_cmdline.py	1	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/env.py	76	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/libs/gap/util.pyx	1		
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/libs/singular/singular.pyx	11	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/misc/lazy_import.pyx	69	
-rw-r--r--	src/sage/misc/startup_guard.py	25			
-rw-r--r--	src/test.py	64	

Do they really pertain to this ticket?

Sorry for these (unnessary) changes. The only way I currently have to work on sage is with the virtual environment created in #30371. The compiled cython however only works correctly if the changes of #30901 and #30748 are included. Thus, until these packages are merged, I have to sadly include them as dependencies on all packages I develop...maybe you or Matthias have a better idea for a workaround.

Now all tests are passing (not sure about the doctests), and the only thing left is to change the documentation a bit.

---

New commits:

​c6fb9c6

Fix tests

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

A question from my side: why is this ticket depending on #30901 and #30748 ? In the ticket description you write Please ignore the dependencies, these are just there so that I can work locally on my PC. This looks somewhat odd...

Indeed, this is not the way to do this.

Sorry for these (unnessary) changes. The only way I currently have to work on sage is with the virtual environment created in #30371. [...]maybe you or Matthias have a better idea for a workaround.

I would suggest to create a clean branch starting from the latest beta and to push that to the ticket only. Use git cherry-pick to get the commits from your branch (with the dependencies that you say you need for running Sage) onto the clean branch. Push the clean branch to the ticket.

[git]

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

​c507da7

Add documentation to symplectic vector space

[git]

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

​da7e6c3

Revise docs for Poissen tensors

[git]

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

​a3e1fc0	Remove test script
​c81cec9	Remove additions to gitignore
​a131e26	Revise code
​d31e066	Cleanup
​b827f46	Merge branch 'develop' of git://github.com/sagemath/sage into public/manifolds/symplectic
​137314a	Merge branch 'develop' of git://github.com/sagemath/sage into public/manifolds/symplectic

[git]

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

​17fadb6

Revert "Wrap each sage.all import in startup guard"

[git]

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

​b8f7881

Remove unrelated changes

[git]

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

​070c7f9	Remove unrelated changes
​8e8923b	Implement hodge star

[gh-tobiasdiez]

So, I think, I'm mostly finished with the implementation. Some of the doctests may still fail and this will be a bit of a tedious procedure since sage -t doesn't work for me locally (need to investigate). But it's definitely in a state where I would appreciate feedback!

[tscrim]

Thank you for your work on this. I will let someone who is more invested in the manifold code give more feedback about the overall implementation and structure. I will focus here on the more technical aspects.

From the patchbot, you have at least one infinite recursion to take care of:

**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/manifolds/differentiable/vectorfield.py", line 1024, in sage.manifolds.differentiable.vectorfield.VectorField.curl
Failed example:
    curl(v) == s
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/sagemath/sage-9.1/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 714, in _run
        self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
      File "/home/sagemath/sage-9.1/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 1133, in compile_and_execute
        exec(compiled, globs)
      File "<doctest sage.manifolds.differentiable.vectorfield.VectorField.curl[6]>", line 1, in <module>
        curl(v) == s
      File "/home/sagemath/sage-9.1/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/sage/manifolds/operators.py", line 239, in curl
        return vector.curl()
      File "/home/sagemath/sage-9.1/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/sage/manifolds/differentiable/vectorfield.py", line 1052, in curl
        resu = der.hodge_dual(metric).up(metric)
      File "/home/sagemath/sage-9.1/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/sage/manifolds/differentiable/diff_form.py", line 1568, in hodge_dual
        return metric.hodge_star(self)
      File "/home/sagemath/sage-9.1/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/sage/manifolds/differentiable/metric.py", line 1970, in hodge_star
        return pform.hodge_dual(self)
      File "/home/sagemath/sage-9.1/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/sage/manifolds/differentiable/diff_form.py", line 1568, in hodge_dual

You should write all of the docstrings and doctests for all of your methods.

There are a number of formatting issues with your docstrings:

-TESTS:
+TESTS::
+
     sage: import pytest
     sage: pytest.main("symplectic_vector_space_test.py")
     TODO: add output

     def hamiltonian_vector_field(self, function: DiffScalarField) -> VectorField:
         r"""
         Return the Hamiltonian vector field `X_f` generated by the given function `f: M \to \RR`.
+
-        It is defined by
+        The Hamiltonian vector field is defined by
+
         .. MATH::
 
             X_f = - \varpi^\sharp (d f),
 
         where `\varpi^\sharp: T^* M \to TM` is given by
         `\beta(\varpi^\sharp(\alpha)) = \varpi(\alpha, \beta)`.
 
         INPUT:
+
         - ```function`` -- the function generating the Hamiltonian vector field

        - ``coordinates`` -- (default: ``'Cartesian'``) the
          type of coordinates to be initialized at the Euclidean space
          creation; allowed values are

          * ``'Cartesian'`` (canonical coordinates on `\RR^{2n}`)
          * ``'polar'`` for ``dimension=2`` only (see
            :meth:`~sage.manifolds.differentiable.examples.euclidean.EuclideanPlane.polar_coordinates`)
        - ``symbols`` -- the coordinate
          text symbols and LaTeX symbols, with the same conventions as the
          argument ``coordinates`` in
          ...

among others.

I am not sure I agree with using pytest and a test file as opposed to standard docstrings. We are still experimenting with these features.

poisson_tensor.py is missing the initial file header info and docstring.

I don't see the reason for the TYPE_CHECKING. There are also other ways to add the type info without importing.

I think this docstring is wrong:

    def poisson(self, expansion_symbol: Optional[Expression] = None, order: int = 1) -> TensorFieldParal:
        r"""
        Return the inverse metric.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Thanks for the feedback! I've now implemented your suggestions.

I don't see the reason for the TYPE_CHECKING. There are also other ways to add the type info without importing.

What "other ways" do you mean? These imports are encapsulated by a check for TYPE_CHECKING, which is false during runtime and is only set to true by static code analyzers. This is needed to prevent circular inputs or imports from half-initialized modules.

[git]

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

​9f814f1	Fix tests
​aa6a0e3	Implement feedback

[git]

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

​8dedc5e

Cleanup code

[git]

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

​6e1b515

Fix tests

[gh-mjungmath]

It might be worth mentioning that there was already an attempt in implementing Poisson structures. A first step had been made with #23429. It'd be beneficial to reuse parts of that code instead of writing new one. In particular, the Poisson tensor field, as you call it, is a bi-vectorfield and hence a multivectorfield in the above sense. It would thus make sense if your Poisson tensor inherits from a multivectorfield.

Moreover, I think it's a good idea to split this ticket into two: one for the Poisson structure and another (dependent on the Poisson structure ticket) for the symplectic structure. That makes the debugging and review much easier.

At the moment, I am unfortunately busy with other things. If I have some time, I'll take a closer look.

[gh-mjungmath]

And pyflakes is complaining:

src/sage/manifolds/differentiable/examples/symplectic_vector_space_test.py:1:1 'sage.all' imported but unused

src/sage/manifolds/differentiable/symplectic_form_test.py:5:1 'sage.all' imported but unused

[git]

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

​63d3ae6

Implement poisson tensor using multivector fields

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Thanks for the pointer to the multivector fields! I've not been aware of their existence. The poisson tensor now inherits from MultivectorField? instead of TensorField?.

Since the PoissonTensor? class is relatively short, and most changes intertwine Poisson and symplectic things (e.g. the up/down methods) I would like to keep them together.

The sage.all imports are needed due to half-finished module imports otherwise. I plan to address this in forthcoming tickets.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

Since the PoissonTensor? class is relatively short...

Just underlines my argument. ;)

Short code is much easier to review. Besides, since all the symplectic part relies on the Poisson structure, it's good to review that one first.

The sage.all imports are needed due to half-finished module imports otherwise. I plan to address this in forthcoming tickets.

What do you mean?

[git]

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

​d968468

A bit more code cleanup

[mkoeppe]

Added #30551 dependency because of future.annotations

[gh-mjungmath]

What's the story behind the ..._test.py files? Is it related to #30738?

[gh-mjungmath]

I'd say we should drop these features such as typing, pytest etc. in this ticket for now, otherwise this ticket will stay on hold as long as #30738, #30551, #31003, #29775 etc. and all their follow ups have not been settled.

Taking a look at the discussions, that could take a while, whereas this ticket seems in principle to be ready for review.

[git]

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

​1c2cd6d

Add more examples

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

The sage.all imports are needed due to half-finished module imports otherwise. I plan to address this in forthcoming tickets.

What do you mean?

Without these imports I get the following error:

ImportError while importing test module '/mnt/d/Programming/sage/src/sage/manifolds/differentiable/examples/symplectic_vector_space_test.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
/usr/lib/python3.8/importlib/__init__.py:127: in import_module
    return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
sage/manifolds/differentiable/examples/symplectic_vector_space_test.py:2: in <module>
    from sage.manifolds.differentiable.symplectic_form import SymplecticForm
sage/manifolds/differentiable/symplectic_form.py:34: in <module>
    from sage.symbolic.expression import Expression
sage/symbolic/expression.pyx:310: in init sage.symbolic.expression
    from .ring import SR
sage/symbolic/ring.pyx:1: in init sage.symbolic.ring
    # -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
sage/rings/integer.pyx:1: in init sage.rings.integer
    r"""
sage/rings/rational.pyx:95: in init sage.rings.rational
    import sage.rings.real_mpfr
sage/rings/real_mpfr.pyx:1: in init sage.rings.real_mpfr
    r"""
sage/libs/mpmath/utils.pyx:1: in init sage.libs.mpmath.utils
    """
sage/rings/complex_mpfr.pyx:1: in init sage.rings.complex_mpfr
    """
sage/rings/complex_double.pyx:98: in init sage.rings.complex_double
    from . import complex_mpfr
E   ImportError: cannot import name complex_mpfr

I tried to make progress towards solving this in #30741, but I cannot really work on this until #30371 is merged.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

What's the story behind the ..._test.py files? Is it related to #30738?

It doesn't really rely on #30738, but it uses pytest as well, yes. I'm not a big fan of doctests (as unit tests) and was told that I can always extract them to test files if I prefer that.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

I'd say we should drop these features such as typing, pytest etc. in this ticket for now, otherwise this ticket will stay on hold as long as #30738, #30551, #31003, #29775 etc. and all their follow ups have not been settled.

The added typing doesn't have any dependencies (beyond #30551, which will be merged in 9.4). The pytests rely only on #31003, which is hopefully close to be merged. If you prefer, I can extract the pytests to a new ticket although it feels strange to separate the implementation from its tests.

[gh-mjungmath]

Technically, yes. However, I have the feeling that there are still too many open discussions about using pytest and typing and how to pull it on the current framework. I doubt this ticket will get a positive review until everything is clarified in a broader context like #29775 and #30738. See also comment:28 from Travis.

Anyway, I think that symplectic forms are a great and extremely useful addition to Sage! I am looking forward to have that feature acutally in there. Thanks! :)

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

I tried to make progress towards solving this in #30741, but I cannot really work on this until #30371 is merged.

It's best to keep workarounds for your experimental setup on your branches and not to push them to tickets. We cannot merge such code and it complicates the discussions in the review. I recommend to use git add -p and git cherry-pick to make clean branches.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

I have the feeling that there are still too many open discussions about using pytest and typing and how to pull it on the current framework.

I agree! Since it's also a lot of work to remove the typing information again, I would say we wait until the development cycle of 9.4 is started, which will resolve #30551 and thereby the other typing tickets. When the time comes, we can reevaluate to split of the pytests to a new ticket. I think this is a resonable time plan anyway, since this is my first bigger contribution to sage and I'm expecting quite some comments concerning the actual implementation, beyond pytest and typing.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to mkoeppe:

It's best to keep workarounds for your experimental setup on your branches and not to push them to tickets. We cannot merge such code and it complicates the discussions in the review. I recommend to use git add -p and git cherry-pick to make clean branches.

Thanks, but the problem does not come from my editable setup. Pytest simply doesn't import sage.all before importing the test file, and without such an import other imports such as from sage.symbolic.expression import Expression do not work (because they implicitly rely on a certain import order that is provided by sage.all). The reference to #30371 was only because I cannot efficiently work on #30741 without recompiling cython files for which I need #30371.

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

the problem does not come from my editable setup. Pytest simply doesn't import sage.all before importing the test file, and without such an import other imports such as from sage.symbolic.expression import Expression do not work (because they implicitly rely on a certain import order that is provided by sage.all).

Thanks for the clarification. Would it be enough to do the import in the src/conftest.py file added by #31003?

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to mkoeppe:

Thanks for the clarification. Would it be enough to do the import in the src/conftest.py file added by #31003?

Sadly not. The fixture in conftest.py does load sage.all, but this is only used when the test are run and not on test discovery. Hence, this only prevents these problems on runtime, but not if the import of the test module already fails. Anyway, for the modularization effort is still desired that one can import and use any sage module without using sage.all before.

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. Last 10 new commits:

​66c2987	build/pkgs/{sage_sws2rst,sage_docbuild}/install-requires.txt: New
​7f8ec6c	build/pkgs/sagelib/src/tox.ini: Add factor sitepackages
​0283da5	build/make/Makefile.in: Add wheel, setuptools_wheel to PYTHON_TOOLCHAIN to make sure that PEP 517 packages have a complete build system
​f720722	build/pkgs/sagelib/src/tox.ini: Add factor nobuildisolation
​c451b31	src/setup.cfg.m4 (install_requires): Add sage_conf
​6700223	Merge tag '9.3.rc0' into t/30913/sagelib__add_setup_cfg__install_requires_
​04da2c6	build/pkgs/ipywidgets: Patch out declaring install-requires of nbformat and jupyterlab-widgets
​815c944	Merge #30913
​b06731c	Remove Python 3.6 support from metadata and documentation
​2087571	Add symplectic structures (Trac 30362 squashed)

[mkoeppe]

Rebased (squashed) on top of updated #30551

[git]

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

​14619d1

Add symplectic structures (Trac 30362 squashed)

[git]

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

​daf5af8

Add symplectic structures (Trac 30362 squashed)

[mkoeppe]

Rebased, no longer on top of #30551

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Thanks! From my side this is also ready for review!

[mkoeppe]

The ticket still has to depend on #30551, just testing it you don't need the branch to be on top of it.

[gh-mjungmath]

There are a lot of doctests missing. For example symplectic_form and poisson_tensor in differentiable/manifold.py.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Thanks for the input. That was one point I was struggling with. The tests are there, just in a different file (e.g. differentiable/poisson_tensor.py) and the methods in manifold.py is just a convenient helper method. So I was wondering where to add tests, without just copying them all over the place.

[gh-mjungmath]

Well, it is not only about testing but also about documenting. Keep in mind that EXAMPLE blocks occur in the official reference manual and therefore provide a guideline for the user how to use that method adequately aside from testing.

Having the same examples in different places in the documentation isn't necessarily a bad thing. What I usually do is to change some values, dimensions or expressions instead of blindly copy.

[gh-mjungmath]

It is also a good idea to add a SEEALSO block in the poisson_tensor method linking to differentiable/poisson_tensor.py.

[egourgoulhon]

Now that Sage 9.4 beta cycle has started, it would be nice to have this ticket make its way into Sage 9.4.

[mkoeppe]

Setting a new milestone for this ticket based on a cursory review.

[git]

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

​193bb88	Merge branch 'develop' of https://github.com/sagemath/sage into public/manifolds/symplectic
​c471d06	Cleanup and add missing doctests

[git]

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

​0903929

Final cleanup

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Please excuse that it took me so long, but I've finally found the time to cleanup the code. The tests should be complete and pass now, except for the pytests for S2 which fail because of #32953. Other than this, this is ready for review.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

Please excuse that it took me so long, but I've finally found the time to cleanup the code. The tests should be complete and pass now, except for the pytests for S2 which fail because of #32953. Other than this, this is ready for review.

Happy to see that symplectic structures make their way to Sage! I'll have a look in the coming days. Meanwhile, the patchbot reveals that the doctest coverage is not complete. You can check it by yourself by running sage -coverage src/sage/manifolds.

[git]

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

​16a08af

Add and fix doctests

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Thanks, I've overlooked that some doctests were missing. Now everything should be in order, except for a few 'false-positves' related to the usage of pytest. For this, I've opened #32975.

[git]

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

​fbc1af8

Fix S2 tests

[git]

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

​bf56226

#30362: minimal fix of docstrings to have reference manual built

[egourgoulhon]

While taking a look to the ticket, I've noticed that the relevant documentation was not generated because there was no entry about symplectic structures in Sage's reference manual. In the above commit, I have therefore added the new file

src/doc/en/reference/manifolds/poisson_manifold.rst

and inserted a reference to it in index.rst in the same directory. Then building the documentation failed due to various errors, mostly

• EXAMPLES: to be replaced by EXAMPLES:: when immediately followed by sage: ...
• .. MATH:: to be followed by a blank line
• the bibliographic references [AM1990] and [RS2007] are missing in the biblio file

I fixed those so that the documentation now builds. Note that at the moment (i.e. until #32946 is merged), one cannot use sage -docbuild reference/manifolds html to quickly generate the relevant part of the reference manual. One has to use make instead, which takes much longer time.

For the references [AM1990] and [RS2007], I simply turned them into literal text so that the documentation could build; could you please add them in the bibliographic file

src/doc/en/reference/references/index.rst

[egourgoulhon]

A few comments:

• The file src/sage/all_cmdline.py should not be touched by this ticket.
• As stated in comment:2, the changes in TopologicalManifold.__init__ and DifferentiableManifold.__init__ should be reverted.
• In the initialization

  sage: M.<q, p> = EuclideanSpace(2, "R2", r"\mathbb{R}^2", symbols=r"q:q p:p")
  

  the arguments 2 and symbols are not necessary. This can be shortened to

  sage: M.<q,p> = EuclideanSpace(name="R2", latex_name=r"\mathbb{R}^2")
  

  Even better, for the sake of clarity, you could use the default in these doctests, since neither the name nor the LaTeX name of the Euclidean space appears:

  sage: M.<q,p> = EuclideanSpace()
  

  See ​here for details.
• In the examples, the following two lines

  sage: from sage.manifolds.differentiable.poisson_tensor import PoissonTensorField
  sage: poisson = PoissonTensorField(M, 'varpi')
  

  should be replaced by

  poisson = M.poisson_tensor(name='varpi')
  

  since this is the way the end user should use initialize a Poisson tensor.
• Similarly

  sage: from sage.manifolds.differentiable.symplectic_form import SymplecticForm
  sage: omega = SymplecticForm(M, 'omega', r'\omega')
  

  should be replaced by

  sage: omega = M.symplectic_form(name='omega', latex_name=r'\omega')
  

[gh-mjungmath]

Something a bit off-topic, but mentioned here a couple of months ago:

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

I think, it's strange if the constructor requires more data than actually is required. Although that might be a matter of taste, but I find M = TopologicalManifold(2, 'M') more readable than M = Manifold(2, 'M', structure='topological').

On a second thought (after this time) I tend to agree with Tobias, though I also see the point of cluttering Sage's namespace.

What if we use the namespace manifolds, i.e. manifolds.TopologicalManifold, manifolds.SymplecticManifold, ..., instead? We already have manifolds.Sphere, manifolds.RealLine, ..., and it seems quite natural to me adding the above to this namespace, too. This way, we do not clutter the global namespace but maintain the desired convenience. Eric, what do you think?

Of course, this shouldn't be treated in this ticket, rather in a follow-up.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

What if we use the namespace manifolds, i.e. manifolds.TopologicalManifold, manifolds.SymplecticManifold, ..., instead? We already have manifolds.Sphere, manifolds.RealLine, ..., and it seems quite natural to me adding the above to this namespace, too. This way, we do not clutter the global namespace but maintain the desired convenience. Eric, what do you think?

Yes, why not?

Of course, this shouldn't be treated in this ticket, rather in a follow-up.

Certainly.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Thanks for the feedback. I've incorporated your suggestions and updated the code.

Still have to check for the docs, since building them takes adges...

Concerning

In the examples, the following two lines

sage: from sage.manifolds.differentiable.poisson_tensor import PoissonTensorField? sage: poisson = PoissonTensorField?(M, 'varpi')

should be replaced by

poisson = M.poisson_tensor(name='varpi')

since this is the way the end user should use initialize a Poisson tensor.

I've changed it, but think that it still would be useful to have the examples directly for the constructor. It's similar to what I've mentioned above, but why should M.poisson_tensor be superior to PoissonTensor(M)? Sure for a normal sage user the first is more convient, as you don't have to import anything. But if you use sage more as a python library, than the latter is maybe your preferred way.

[git]

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

​3f390f8

Incorporate feedback

[tscrim]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

Concerning

In the examples, the following two lines

sage: from sage.manifolds.differentiable.poisson_tensor import PoissonTensorField
sage: poisson = PoissonTensorField(M, 'varpi')

should be replaced by

poisson = M.poisson_tensor(name='varpi')

since this is the way the end user should use initialize a Poisson tensor.

I've changed it, but think that it still would be useful to have the examples directly for the constructor. It's similar to what I've mentioned above, but why should M.poisson_tensor be superior to PoissonTensor(M)? Sure for a normal sage user the first is more convient, as you don't have to import anything. But if you use sage more as a python library, than the latter is maybe your preferred way.

It is something that is associated to the manifold, therefore the API should favor the method. (Contrast this to the exterior algebra, which is not associated to its defining base ring.) Plus it means you do not have to care about it being parallelizeable or not. Not only for front-end users because of the lack of import, but we also want people using it as a library to use the method. It also helps avoid a bit circular import hell.

Remove the pytest test and replace them with standard tests. The disassociation with the doctests makes it very easy to miss full coverage (to the point where I have to do a lot of very detailed checking), there are no examples right there in the methods for a future developer to quickly look at, it is a heavier maintenance burden to keep things in sync, and it adds clutter. I also do not want to keep a uniform approach to doctests at this point until there is a large consensus to adopt such a change. This also removes the otherwise unnecessary dependency on #32975.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to tscrim:

Remove the pytest test and replace them with standard tests. The disassociation with the doctests makes it very easy to miss full coverage (to the point where I have to do a lot of very detailed checking), there are no examples right there in the methods for a future developer to quickly look at, it is a heavier maintenance burden to keep things in sync, and it adds clutter. I also do not want to keep a uniform approach to doctests at this point until there is a large consensus to adopt such a change. This also removes the otherwise unnecessary dependency on #32975.

I fully agree: introducing the pytest framework in Sage does not belong to this ticket. It would be a pity to have to wait for #32975 for having symplectic structures in Sage. Similarly, I don't think #32953 should be a dependency.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to tscrim:

Remove the pytest test and replace them with standard tests. The disassociation with the doctests makes it very easy to miss full coverage (to the point where I have to do a lot of very detailed checking), there are no examples right there in the methods for a future developer to quickly look at, it is a heavier maintenance burden to keep things in sync, and it adds clutter. I also do not want to keep a uniform approach to doctests at this point until there is a large consensus to adopt such a change. This also removes the otherwise unnecessary dependency on #32975.

+1

Replying to egourgoulhon:

I fully agree: introducing the pytest framework in Sage does not belong to this ticket. It would be a pity to have to wait for #32975 for having symplectic structures in Sage. Similarly, I don't think #32953 should be a dependency.

+1

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Pytest is already an optional package for a long time, and it has been integrated in the usual sage -t command in #31003. So this ticket here is only using existing infrastructure. Note also that pytest is not essentially used - it only provides consistency and more detailed tests of special cases, every method still has "normal" examples in their documentation. The longterm idea is to make pytest a standard package, see #31110. But for this one needs to collect experience with its usage in sage. For example, as you point out the coverage tools needs improvement to be still useful with pytest. I've opened #32994 to keep track of this. Thanks for the suggestion.

I thought ticket dependencies are a natural element of the sage workflow. Since you collectively don't liked them, I've now added a few doctests instead of using the proposed TEST: pytest syntax proposed in #32975. Once this ticket is merged one could revert to that syntax as a follow-up. The dependency on #32953 can indeed be removed thanks to the fix by Eric.

[git]

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

​7d98bd4

Remove dependency on other ticket

[tscrim]

Thank you for making the changes.

Dependencies are a natural thing, but they still should be relevant to the ticket at-hand. Imposing a dependency because you want to use a new feature you care about is not a good practice IMO. (I feel it is more akin to hostage diplomacy.) To gain experience in using something, one should do a ticket that changes some part of Sage that is more stable that can be compared (or perhaps one that needs some attention because it is older code/doc).

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to tscrim:

Imposing a dependency because you want to use a new feature you care about is not a good practice IMO. (I feel it is more akin to hostage diplomacy.)

Sorry that it made this impression. It was actually the other way around: while working on this ticket here, I created #32975 to make my life easier...

To gain experience in using something, one should do a ticket that changes some part of Sage that is more stable that can be compared.

That's also done, see for example #30738 which awaits review/feedback.

[egourgoulhon]

Thanks for the changes. It seems that we are converging ;-)

A few more points:

• The macro \contr in the docstring of hamiltonian_vector_field is not recognized by LaTeX: this produces a red literal \contr in the html documentation and breaks the pdf documentation, as you can easily check by running sage -docbuild reference/manifolds pdf (this works, no need to wait for #32946, which regards only the html documentation).
• The docstring of SymplecticFormParal shall not start by TODO
• The unnecessary import from sage.manifolds.structure import RealDifferentialStructure should be removed from differentiable/manifold.py.
• The line containing _dim: int should be removed from manifolds/manifold.py (in other words, the file manifolds/manifold.py should not be touched by this ticket)
• It seems to me that the files symplectic_form_test.py and symplectic_vector_space_test.py should be removed from this ticket, until #32975 is settled. They are triggering coverage and puflakes errors and are no used in the current test framework.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to egourgoulhon:

• The macro \contr in the docstring of hamiltonian_vector_field is not recognized by LaTeX: this produces a red literal \contr in the html documentation and breaks the pdf documentation, as you can easily check by running sage -docbuild reference/manifolds pdf (this works, no need to wait for #32946, which regards only the html documentation).

Should be fixed now. I cannot test this, as building the PDF also doesn't work for me: RuntimeError?: failed to run $MAKE all-pdf in /home/tobias/sage/local/share/doc/sage/latex/en/reference/manifolds

• The docstring of SymplecticFormParal shall not start by TODO

Nicely spotted!

• The unnecessary import from sage.manifolds.structure import RealDifferentialStructure should be removed from differentiable/manifold.py.

Done!

• The line containing _dim: int should be removed from manifolds/manifold.py (in other words, the file manifolds/manifold.py should not be touched by this ticket)

It's needed in order to not get typing issues in the new symplectic forms file. I know that there is no check in place (yet?) to verify that all (new) code adheres to typing standards, but I think its good practice to let the typing evolve as one works on the code. Also typing errors are shown as errors for me in VS and as I will be probably the person working on the symplectic code the most in the near future, I would strongly prefer to have such errors as little as possible.

• It seems to me that the files symplectic_form_test.py and symplectic_vector_space_test.py should be removed from this ticket, until #32975 is settled. They are triggering coverage and puflakes errors and are no used in the current test framework.

They are invoked by ./sage -t (if pytest is installed in the sage venv) and run without issues (at least for me). The sage.all imports that pyflakes is complaining about are needed due to various cyclic imports. #30741 started the work to remove these cyclic imports, but more work is needed.

[git]

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

​902bf29

Further changes based on feedback

[egourgoulhon]

Yet two more:

• the INPUT blocks of __init__ methods shall be moved to the main docstring of the class; otherwise, they don't appear in the documentation. Similarly for the EXAMPLES section. See e.g. what is done indiff_form.py. Actually, only TESTS should appear in the docstring of __init__ since, as for any private method, its docstring does not appear to the generated documentation.
• the docstring of hodge_star is still in the stage of a copy/paste from the metric one; it should be adapted to the symplectic form.

---

New commits:

​902bf29

Further changes based on feedback

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

Replying to egourgoulhon:

• The macro \contr in the docstring of hamiltonian_vector_field is not recognized by LaTeX: this produces a red literal \contr in the html documentation and breaks the pdf documentation, as you can easily check by running sage -docbuild reference/manifolds pdf (this works, no need to wait for #32946, which regards only the html documentation).

Should be fixed now.

Yes it is, thanks.

I cannot test this, as building the PDF also doesn't work for me: RuntimeError?: failed to run $MAKE all-pdf in /home/tobias/sage/local/share/doc/sage/latex/en/reference/manifolds

Strange... It works for me. Don't you have a more precise error message?

• The line containing _dim: int should be removed from manifolds/manifold.py (in other words, the file manifolds/manifold.py should not be touched by this ticket)

It's needed in order to not get typing issues in the new symplectic forms file. I know that there is no check in place (yet?) to verify that all (new) code adheres to typing standards, but I think its good practice to let the typing evolve as one works on the code. Also typing errors are shown as errors for me in VS and as I will be probably the person working on the symplectic code the most in the near future, I would strongly prefer to have such errors as little as possible.

OK, very well.

• It seems to me that the files symplectic_form_test.py and symplectic_vector_space_test.py should be removed from this ticket, until #32975 is settled. They are triggering coverage and puflakes errors and are no used in the current test framework.

They are invoked by ./sage -t (if pytest is installed in the sage venv) and run without issues (at least for me). The sage.all imports that pyflakes is complaining about are needed due to various cyclic imports. #30741 started the work to remove these cyclic imports, but more work is needed.

OK.

[mkoeppe]

Spotted some typos: "Riemaninan", "Poissen", "indicies", "symplecic", "where where", "calculate it's" -> "calculate its"

[egourgoulhon]

The documentation of DifferentiableManifold.poisson_tensor and DifferentiableManifold.symplectic_form is pretty terse. It should contain an OUTPUT block with some hyperlink to the class PoissonTensorField, thereby providing an easy access to the latter, e.g.

OUTPUT:

- instance of
  :class:`~sage.manifolds.differentiable.poisson_tensor.PoissonTensorField`

[git]

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

​da70277

Further improvements

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

• I am not sure that sharp and flat are proper names for lowering/raising the index w.r.t. a symplectic structure, I presume they are reserved for metrics only. raise and lower sounds more appropriate to me.

The terminology sharp and flat (as well as musical isomorphisms) is standard in symplectic geometry, too. See for example Abraham Marsden Foundations of Mechanics.

You have a page? I only find the terminology 'lowering' and 'raising'.

I looked at that reference, and page 128 calls the maps "raising" and "lowering". But other sources do use the terminology "the sharp of ..." and "the flat of ..." for the results of these operations. Other things equal, I think for method names one should prefer verbs. So I would be in favor of raise() and lower() as well. Just my 2 cents

[mkoeppe]

(However, raise is a reserved word.)

[git]

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

​92ee51c

#30362: fix documentation + reviewer tweak

[egourgoulhon]

The documentation was broken due to some indentation issue in the bullet list of some INPUT blocks. This is fixed in the above commit. In addition, I've

• corrrected some cut-and-paste typos
• added docstests to __init__ methods, which had no longer any
• changed the doctests of PoissonTensorField, SymplecticForm and VectorFieldModule.poisson_tensor and VectorFieldModule.symplectic_form from the Euclidean space to the 2-sphere, since we need here non-parallelizable manifolds (otherwise, the doctest is actually not testing the said method)
• added some hyperlink to the Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket

A question: in the definition of a symplectic form given in the docstring of SymplecticForm, shouldn't one add that \omega must be closed?

[egourgoulhon]

It would be nice to have this in Sage 9.5. Does everybody agree with the positive review? The doctest error reported by the patchbot does not belong to this ticket and the remaining coverage and pyflakes issues are kind of spurious since they are due to the pytest files symplectic_form_test.py and symplectic_vector_space_test.py (cf. #32975).

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1 and set ticket back to needs_review. New commits:

​4aef246

Add that symplectic forms are closed

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Thanks for your additions and the review!

You are right, symplectic forms need to be closed. I've added it to documentation.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

You are right, symplectic forms need to be closed. I've added it to documentation.

Thanks!

[mkoeppe]

LGTM too.

[gh-mjungmath]

Why are manifold.py, scalarfield.py and subset.py touched in this ticket?

[gh-mjungmath]

Here are some further comments:

• I'd raise an error if the dimension of a symplectic vector space is not even, similarly as you did for symplectic forms.
• Rather a comment than a necessity to change:

             if latex_name is None:
-                latex_name = "\\omega"
+                latex_name = r"\omega"

• Some very minor comments on the documentation:

         INPUT:

-        - ``f`` -- first function
-        - ``g`` -- second function
+        - ``f`` -- function inserted in the first slot
+        - ``g`` -- function inserted in the second slot

     def volume_form(self, contra: int = 0) -> TensorField:
         r"""
         Liouville volume form `\omega^n` associated with the symplectic form `\omega`,
-        where `2n` is the dimension of the manifold).
+        where `2n` is the dimension of the manifold.
-        TODO: Decide about normalization

• I am not sure whether a TODO is supposed to be in the documentation part. I probably would prefer it somewhere in the code. Nevertheless, it'd be nice if you could elaborate a bit more what that is supposed to mean. E.g. if it's a decision, present possible choices. I personally see those snippets as reminder for me and/or as a teaser for other developers who might want to attack this. (As for the former, I tend to forget what I meant by those things if I keep it too vague. :P)

These are just very minor things. If you want to change it, nice. If not, don't worry.

I may take a closer look soon. But so far it already looks really really nice! :)

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

Why are manifold.py, scalarfield.py and subset.py touched in this ticket?

This is needed for the correct typing in the newly added classes, see ​https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30362#comment:93 for discussion on this point.

Thanks for the other suggestions. I've now implemented them.

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1 and set ticket back to needs_review. New commits:

​ee5b552

Implement feedback

[mkoeppe]

The new class is called SymplecticVectorSpace but as far as I can see there is no vector space structure implemented: Elements are points and cannot be added or scaled.

Perhaps, if it's not too late for this change, it should be called just SymplecticSpace (similar to EuclideanSpace) and we reserve the name SymplecticVectorSpace for later.

[mkoeppe]

... or perhaps AffineSymplecticSpace.

[mkoeppe]

In particular, sage.modules already has vector spaces that can be equipped with an arbitrary bilinear form - ​https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/modules/sage/modules/free_module.html#sage.modules.free_module.FreeModule; symplectic vector spaces are merely a special case.

[gh-mjungmath]

Another thing. I think it is better to use Sage's factorial function in symplectic_form.py, and import this function in the only method where it is needed, namely volume_form:

 from __future__ import annotations
 from six.moves import range
 from typing import Dict, Union, Optional
-from math import factorial

             sage: vol = omega.volume_form() ; vol
             4-form mu_omega on the 4-dimensional symplectic vector space R4
             sage: vol.display()
             mu_omega = dq1∧dp1∧dq2∧dp2
         """
+        from sage.functions.other import factorial
+
         if self._vol_form is None:

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to mkoeppe:

The new class is called SymplecticVectorSpace but as far as I can see there is no vector space structure implemented: Elements are points and cannot be added or scaled.

That's true. As written in the ticket description, the plan is to provide a "vector space as a manifold" example that should be used as the base class for SymplecticVectorSpace.

.. or perhaps AffineSymplecticSpace?.

Not sure if one needs this generalization, and even then one probably wants to say that its an affine space modeled on a symplectic vector space.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

Another thing. I think it is better to use Sage's factorial function in symplectic_form.py

I was wondering about this too, but in the end decided for the built-in factorial since the numbers for which one calculates this are very small (and are dominated by the n-th wedge product anyway). So I used the factorial from math to not pull-in some dependencies. But I can change this of course.

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

to not pull-in some dependencies.

This does not matter here because sage.manifolds already depends on all of sage.symbolic and sage.functions

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

.. or perhaps AffineSymplecticSpace?.

Not sure if one needs this generalization, and even then one probably wants to say that its an affine space modeled on a symplectic vector space.

I don't know, one could just say it's an affine space with a translation-invariant symplectic form.

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

TODO (as follow-up tickets):

• Extract general coordinate stuff from EuclideanSpace to new class VectorSpace, and let SymplecticVectorSpace derive from VectorSpace

We will have to be very careful with the design of this so that we do not add a 4th incompatible implementation of finite-dimensional vector spaces in Sage in this way. (We already have 3, implemented in sage.modules, sage.combinat.free_module, and sage.tensor.modules, respectively, see the constructor in ​https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/modules/sage/modules/free_module.html#sage.modules.free_module.FreeModule)

That's why I would urge to set the vector space side of things aside and only focus on the (affine) symplectic space here on this ticket.

The relation of

• free modules with a symplectic form to SymplecticSpace
• free modules with a positive definite form to EuclideanSpace

should be done in one follow up ticket.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to mkoeppe:

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

to not pull-in some dependencies.

This does not matter here because sage.manifolds already depends on all of sage.symbolic and sage.functions

Unfortunately, I am not an expert in this import business. Why does sage.manifolds matter here? And doesn't factorial belong to sage.functions.other? Wouldn't that make a difference, too? Notice that you did the same in diff_form.py:

@@ -732,9 +746,22 @@ class DiffForm(TensorField):
         :meth:`~sage.manifolds.differentiable.metric.PseudoRiemannianMetric.hodge_star`
         for more examples.
         """
-        if metric is None:
-            metric = self._vmodule._ambient_domain.metric()
-        return metric.hodge_star(self)
+        from sage.functions.other import factorial

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to mkoeppe:

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

TODO (as follow-up tickets):

• Extract general coordinate stuff from EuclideanSpace to new class VectorSpace, and let SymplecticVectorSpace derive from VectorSpace

We will have to be very careful with the design of this so that we do not add a 4th incompatible implementation of finite-dimensional vector spaces in Sage in this way. (We already have 3, implemented in sage.modules, sage.combinat.free_module, and sage.tensor.modules, respectively, see the constructor in ​https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/modules/sage/modules/free_module.html#sage.modules.free_module.FreeModule)

+1

That's why I would urge to set the vector space side of things aside and only focus on the (affine) symplectic space here on this ticket.

The relation of

• free modules with a symplectic form to SymplecticSpace
• free modules with a positive definite form to EuclideanSpace

should be done in one follow up ticket.

+1

In the current state, SymplecticVectorSpace is simply a subclass of EuclideanSpace, which is fine at this stage. Maybe, following Matthias' recommendation, just rename it to AffineSymplecticSpace (despite there is no affine structure explicitly implemented). IMHO, SymplecticSpace would be too general, sounding like a synonym for SymplecticManifold.

Besides, I agree with Michael: import factorial as in diff_form.py.

[gh-mjungmath]

To keep the old behavior of hodge_dual, I'd suggest to fall back on the metric if no input has been given, otherwise an AttributeError will be thrown (which didn't happen before):

         from sage.functions.other import factorial
         from sage.tensor.modules.format_utilities import format_unop_txt, \
                                                          format_unop_latex

+        if nondegenerate_tensor is None:
+            nondegenerate_tensor = self._vmodule._ambient_domain.metric()

         p = self.tensor_type()[1]
         eps = nondegenerate_tensor.volume_form(p)

Accordingly, this behavior should be documented.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

To keep the old behavior of hodge_dual, I'd suggest to fall back on the metric if no input has been given, otherwise an AttributeError will be thrown (which didn't happen before):

         from sage.functions.other import factorial
         from sage.tensor.modules.format_utilities import format_unop_txt, \
                                                          format_unop_latex

+        if nondegenerate_tensor is None:
+            nondegenerate_tensor = self._vmodule._ambient_domain.metric()

         p = self.tensor_type()[1]
         eps = nondegenerate_tensor.volume_form(p)

Accordingly, this behavior should be documented.

In any case, if we really want to change this behavior, I'd opt for a more meaningful error message than NoneType object has no attribute....

[git]

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

​afefe4a

Improve hodge_dual and use right factorial

[gh-tobiasdiez]

I've now implemented the your suggestions except for the name change to "AffineSymplecticSpace?". I agree that from a mathematical perspective "affine" has some justification, but in the end a affine symplectic space is diffeomorphic (even symplectomorphic) to a symplectic vector space; thus from a manifolds perspective there is no difference. More importantly, this class is meant as an example for symplectic manifolds (mostly for the doctests) and all textbooks talk about symplectic vector space but almost no one is interested in affine ones (google has like 800 hits for "affine symplectic space").

[mkoeppe]

How is the vector space structure used? It seems to me that there is some conflation of the space and its (constant) tangent space happening.

[mkoeppe]

Note that also most linear algebra textbooks also talk about vector spaces all the time even when they manipulate points in an affine space, not vectors in a vector space.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

The manifold package currently doesn't provide a way to define a manifold abstractly (i.e. by specifying its points), instead a manifold is given in terms of its chart. But an affine and a vector space both have a single chart covering the whole space, the only difference being that there is no "canonical" choice in the affine case while there is one in the vector space setting.

The "correct" name of this class would be "a symplectic manifold symplectomorphic to R2n with its standard symplectic form". For me "symplectic vector space" is a good-enough approximation to this truth.

[mkoeppe]

This would be fine in a specialized system focused only on manifolds; but Sage covers many mathematical areas, and I am concerned that it is misleading to introduce a class that is called ...VectorSpace but is not in the category VectorSpaces.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

The manifold package currently doesn't provide a way to define a manifold abstractly (i.e. by specifying its points), instead a manifold is given in terms of its chart.

All points on a manifold are already uniquely determined in terms of charts. In fact, due to the manifold structure, specifying a manifold by its points or by its charts is equivalent.

Replying to mkoeppe:

This would be fine in a specialized system focused only on manifolds; but Sage covers many mathematical areas, and I am concerned that it is misleading to introduce a class that is called ...VectorSpace but is not in the category VectorSpaces.

I agree. I also think that the best compromise for now is AffineSymplecticSpace.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

But its currently neither an affine nor a vector space... so the question would be: should sage (at some point) has a proper implementation of an affine symplectic space or of a symplectic vector space? In my opinion, for practical purposes, the vector version should be sufficient - if you really only have an affine space, then just don't use the fact that you could add vectors.

Even if we should go with affine symplectic, how would one express the fact that the chart depends on a choice of a base point?

[mkoeppe]

A key difference is that we do not currently have a category for affine spaces. There's merely one implementation, in sage.schemes, that implements AffineSpace from a scheme-theoretic viewpoint. Its category is just the category of schemes, nothing more detailed than that.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

But its currently neither an affine nor a vector space... so the question would be: should sage (at some point) has a proper implementation of an affine symplectic space or of a symplectic vector space? In my opinion, for practical purposes, the vector version should be sufficient - if you really only have an affine space, then just don't use the fact that you could add vectors.

The important difference here is that, in a strict sense, the affine version has no vector space structure. If I understand Matthias's objection correctly, this is exactly the punchline.

[gh-mjungmath]

In addition, notice that EuclideanSpace is meant to represent an affine space, too:

An *Euclidean space of dimension* `n` is an affine space `E`, whose associated
vector space is a `n`-dimensional vector space over `\RR` and is equipped with
a positive definite symmetric bilinear form, called the *scalar product* or
*dot product* [Ber1987]_. An Euclidean space of dimension `n` can also be
viewed as a Riemannian manifold that is diffeomorphic to `\RR^n` and that
has a flat metric `g`. The Euclidean scalar product is then that defined
by the Riemannian metric `g`.

From that viewpoint, since you derive from EuclideanSpace, it is only natural to view your implementation as an affine symplectic space.

[mkoeppe]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

the question would be: should sage (at some point) has a proper implementation of an affine symplectic space or of a symplectic vector space?

To make it a "proper" affine space, one only needs to implement lines, easy to do.

On the other hand, to make it a vector space, one would need to identify the space with its tangent space -- so that the bilinear form can be applied to elements of the space.

[gh-mjungmath]

@Eric: Speaking of which, that brings to my mind: do we want to implement a method vector_space for EuclideanSpace that returns the corresponding underlying vector space (w.r.t. a given frame)?

[gh-mjungmath]

I think, affinness is sufficiently represented by:

sage: EuclideanSpace(3) is EuclideanSpace(3)
False

Thus, you get two distinct affine spaces, you may (or may not) relate to each other. Of course, lines would make this construction mathematically more rigorous.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

More importantly, this class is meant as an example for symplectic manifolds (mostly for the doctests) and all textbooks talk about symplectic vector space but almost no one is interested in affine ones (google has like 800 hits for "affine symplectic space").

This is a good point. Let us forget then about AffineSymplecticSpace. What about StandardSymplecticSpace? This would be in line with ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symplectic_vector_space#Standard_symplectic_space.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

@Eric: Speaking of which, that brings to my mind: do we want to implement a method vector_space for EuclideanSpace that returns the corresponding underlying vector space (w.r.t. a given frame)?

This should probably be discussed in the follow up ticket mentioned in comment:119, in particular to decide which (Sage) type of vector space we want to return.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to egourgoulhon:

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

More importantly, this class is meant as an example for symplectic manifolds (mostly for the doctests) and all textbooks talk about symplectic vector space but almost no one is interested in affine ones (google has like 800 hits for "affine symplectic space").

This is a good point. Let us forget then about AffineSymplecticSpace. What about StandardSymplecticSpace? This would be in line with ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symplectic_vector_space#Standard_symplectic_space.

I am open to other suggestions, but I'd like to point out that the above implementation in fact represents an affine symplectic space since it derives from EuclideanSpace. Thus, there is no other more appropriate name than AffineSymplecticSpace.

And indeed, textbooks usually use symplectic vector spaces as primary example. But most textbooks also talk about the Euclidean vector space RR^n as primary example for Riemannian manifolds. Nevertheless, we decided for the affine version in Sage for the sake of convenience and (imho) accuracy. I say we should not break with it now.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to mkoeppe:

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

the question would be: should sage (at some point) has a proper implementation of an affine symplectic space or of a symplectic vector space?

To make it a "proper" affine space, one only needs to implement lines, easy to do.

On the other hand, to make it a vector space, one would need to identify the space with its tangent space -- so that the bilinear form can be applied to elements of the space.

Well, you just declare the chart to be a linear isomorphism and your done carrying all the (vector space) structure over from Rn. Also easy ;-) To be precise, the new "SymplecticVectorSpace?" class currently represents nothing else then R2n with a fixed basis and its canonical symplectic form, with addition and scalar multiplation forgotten/not yet implemented. You could view this as an abstract affine symplectic space with a chart; but in order to define a chart on an affine space one needs to choose a base point and a basis.

For these reasons I really like the idea

What about StandardSymplecticSpace?

Should I go ahead and rename everything?

In addition, notice that EuclideanSpace? is meant to represent an affine space, too:

The documentation is at least claiming this, but EuclideanSpace? is also not a proper affine space either. You cannot subtract elements (at least I couldn't figure out how) and there is only one chart - but on an affine space you don't have a canonical chart; and once you fix a base point you have a vector space. Moreover, what are "polar coordinates" on an affine space? I think "EuclideanSpace?" is also just Rn with its Euclidean metric, so maybe it should be renamed to StandardEuclideanSpace? in a follow-up ticket?

Sorry for being so stubborn on this, but I would bet that an average graduate student has never seen the definition of an affine symplectic space (I certainly didn't) and so far I cannot see any good examples / uses cases why one would actually need them, especially for a CAS. I agree that the current implementation is not satisfying, but that's why I'd added it as a follow-up todo to implement the "vector space" part. Finally, and most importantly for me, I think the docstrings should try to be as understandable as possible, hiding as much mathematical complexity and focus on how the method/class are used - thus, I would like to use a symplectic vector space as a primary example in the documentation of a symplectic form and not an abstract concept one first has to lookup and understand.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

For these reasons I really like the idea

What about StandardSymplecticSpace?

Should I go ahead and rename everything?

Yes please go on. If you agree with this name, this makes at least two of us and it does not collide with the name VectorSpace. We could still revert to SymplecticVectorSpace later on. IMHO, this nomenclature debate should not prevent this ticket to make its way into Sage 9.5, which is about to be released.

In addition, notice that EuclideanSpace? is meant to represent an affine space, too:

The documentation is at least claiming this, but EuclideanSpace? is also not a proper affine space either.

Actually, the documentation is not claiming that EuclideanSpace is an affine space, because the sentence just after the quoted one in comment:134 is

The current implementation of Euclidean spaces is based on the second point 
of view.

This second point of view is that of a Riemannian manifold, not of an affine space.

Sorry for being so stubborn on this, but I would bet that an average graduate student has never seen the definition of an affine symplectic space (I certainly didn't) and so far I cannot see any good examples / uses cases why one would actually need them, especially for a CAS.

+1

I agree that the current implementation is not satisfying, but that's why I'd added it as a follow-up todo to implement the "vector space" part. Finally, and most importantly for me, I think the docstrings should try to be as understandable as possible, hiding as much mathematical complexity and focus on how the method/class are used - thus, I would like to use a symplectic vector space as a primary example in the documentation of a symplectic form and not an abstract concept one first has to lookup and understand.

+1

[mkoeppe]

Replying to egourgoulhon:

What about StandardSymplecticSpace?

+1, this is a great suggestion

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to egourgoulhon:

Actually, the documentation is not claiming that EuclideanSpace is an affine space, because the sentence just after the quoted one in comment:134 is

The current implementation of Euclidean spaces is based on the second point 
of view.

This second point of view is that of a Riemannian manifold, not of an affine space.

Fair enough.

All fine by me. :)

[git]

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

​91fb04d	Merge branch 'develop' of https://github.com/sagemath/sage into public/manifolds/symplectic
​cdffbb2	Rename to standard symplectic space

[gh-mjungmath]

-        return f"{self._dim}-dimensional symplectic vector space {self._name}"
+        return f"Standard symplectic vector space {self._name}"

This looks like cheating to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point that this implementation does not constitute a vector space? This would still leave the impression to the user that they can add/substract or scale points.

For the sake of consistency, I opt for:

-        return f"Standard symplectic vector space {self._name}"
+        return f"Standard symplectic space {self._name}"

Otherwise, we have to rename Euclidean space to Euclidean vector space, too. Which wouldn't make sense to me due to the aforementioned reasons.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

Sorry for being so stubborn on this, but I would bet that an average graduate student has never seen the definition of an affine symplectic space (I certainly didn't) and so far I cannot see any good examples / uses cases why one would actually need them, especially for a CAS. I agree that the current implementation is not satisfying, but that's why I'd added it as a follow-up todo to implement the "vector space" part. Finally, and most importantly for me, I think the docstrings should try to be as understandable as possible, hiding as much mathematical complexity and focus on how the method/class are used - thus, I would like to use a symplectic vector space as a primary example in the documentation of a symplectic form and not an abstract concept one first has to lookup and understand.

Matthias already pointed out in comment:113 that symplectic vector spaces are at present part of Sage. More reasonable, in my opinion, would be a link between both implementations instead of equipping StandardSymplecticSpace with an additional vector space structure. See for example #30832 for a vaguely similar attempt.

[gh-mjungmath]

@Tobias: I'd like to point out that I perfectly understand your concerns. Actually, I dealt with similar issues when I started in the Sage project. Mathematical accuracy and implementation details cannot always be aligned, unfortunately. That being said, we cannot create Sage objects that unify all their mathematical properties. That's something Travis taught me with hours of patience. Isn't that right Travis? :D

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

-        return f"{self._dim}-dimensional symplectic vector space {self._name}"
+        return f"Standard symplectic vector space {self._name}"

This looks like cheating to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point that this implementation does not constitute a vector space? This would still leave the impression to the user that they can add/substract or scale points.

For the sake of consistency, I opt for:

-        return f"Standard symplectic vector space {self._name}"
+        return f"Standard symplectic space {self._name}"

Otherwise, we have to rename Euclidean space to Euclidean vector space, too. Which wouldn't make sense to me due to the aforementioned reasons.

I wasn't sure about this one. The "vector space" part was meant to convey that "R2" is really the vector space R^2 one knows and that the symplectic form is constant. Can be changed of course.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

@Tobias: I'd like to point out that I perfectly understand your concerns. Actually, I dealt with similar issues when I started in the Sage project. Mathematical accuracy and implementation details cannot always be aligned, unfortunately. That being said, we cannot create Sage objects that unify all their mathematical properties. That's something Travis taught me with hours of patience. Isn't that right Travis? :D

I guess I still have much to learn ;-). So thanks for everyone's patience. Also, as a physicist by education, it is perhaps easier for me to ignore fine mathematical details (affine vs vector space) or mathematical structure (category theory) if that makes the implementation easier.

---

That being said, I still think it would be handy in applications if points of EuclideanSpace? could be added and scaled (without the need to resort to explicit coordinates).

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

-        return f"{self._dim}-dimensional symplectic vector space {self._name}"
+        return f"Standard symplectic vector space {self._name}"

This looks like cheating to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point that this implementation does not constitute a vector space? This would still leave the impression to the user that they can add/substract or scale points.

For the sake of consistency, I opt for:

-        return f"Standard symplectic vector space {self._name}"
+        return f"Standard symplectic space {self._name}"

Otherwise, we have to rename Euclidean space to Euclidean vector space, too. Which wouldn't make sense to me due to the aforementioned reasons.

I wasn't sure about this one. The "vector space" part was meant to convey that "R2" is really the vector space R^2 one knows and that the symplectic form is constant. Can be changed of course.

Yes please change it for consistency, albeit I agree that "vector space" in the name would make perfectly clear that the object is what the user expect.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

That being said, I still think it would be handy in applications if points of EuclideanSpace? could be added and scaled (without the need to resort to explicit coordinates).

This would be handy indeed and there is no reason why this cannot be implemented in a future ticket.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

I wasn't sure about this one. The "vector space" part was meant to convey that "R2" is really the vector space R^2 one knows and that the symplectic form is constant. Can be changed of course.

Well, the Euclidean space is abbreviated with E^n and not R^n. Perhaps we should do the same here, too?

At least until we have the vector space structure on Euclidean space (though, I'd personally prefer an affine structure).

This all is indeed a bit of a hassle, and a lot of subtleties lie on the path. Maybe it is a good idea to nudge a discussion with the Sage (manifolds) community?

[gh-mjungmath]

In my head, these things make perfect sense for me:

• Euclidean space in Sage is an affine vector space.
• The symplectic space above is an affine space, too, endowed with a symplectic structure.
• As for the vector space structure, I think we should link the Euclidean space to preexisting vector spaces endowed with bilinear forms.

I am open to suggestions, different opinions and arguments. :)

But that's not for this ticket.

[egourgoulhon]

By the way, why don't you add StandardSymplecticSpace to the manifold catalog? This would avoid having to import it:

- sage: from sage.manifolds.differentiable.examples.symplectic_space import StandardSymplecticSpace
- sage: M.<q, p> = StandardSymplecticSpace(2, symplectic_name='omega')
+ sage: M.<q, p> = manifolds.StandardSymplecticSpace(2, symplectic_name='omega')

To do this, simply add

_lazy_import('sage.manifolds.differentiable.examples.symplectic_space',
             'StandardSymplecticSpace')

to the file src/sage/manifolds/catalog.py (see e.g. the example of Sphere in that file).

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

Well, the Euclidean space is abbreviated with E^n and not R^n. Perhaps we should do the same here, too?

-1. R^n is certainly much more standard here.

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to egourgoulhon:

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

Well, the Euclidean space is abbreviated with E^n and not R^n. Perhaps we should do the same here, too?

-1. R^n is certainly much more standard here.

Mhm. Well, since StandardSymplecticSpace inherits from EuclideanSpace, such an object still carries the structure of Euclidean space. I see your point though. Difficult...

[gh-mjungmath]

Replying to egourgoulhon:

By the way, why don't you add StandardSymplecticSpace to the manifold catalog? This would avoid having to import it:

- sage: from sage.manifolds.differentiable.examples.symplectic_space import StandardSymplecticSpace
- sage: M.<q, p> = StandardSymplecticSpace(2, symplectic_name='omega')
+ sage: M.<q, p> = manifolds.StandardSymplecticSpace(2, symplectic_name='omega')

To do this, simply add

_lazy_import('sage.manifolds.differentiable.examples.symplectic_space',
             'StandardSymplecticSpace')

to the file src/sage/manifolds/catalog.py (see e.g. the example of Sphere in that file).

Big +1.

[git]

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

​cfe6a24

Remove vector

[git]

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

​2208dfc

Use catalog

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Okay done

[tscrim]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

@Tobias: I'd like to point out that I perfectly understand your concerns. Actually, I dealt with similar issues when I started in the Sage project. Mathematical accuracy and implementation details cannot always be aligned, unfortunately. That being said, we cannot create Sage objects that unify all their mathematical properties. That's something Travis taught me with hours of patience. Isn't that right Travis? :D

I guess I still have much to learn ;-). So thanks for everyone's patience. Also, as a physicist by education, it is perhaps easier for me to ignore fine mathematical details (affine vs vector space) or mathematical structure (category theory) if that makes the implementation easier.

The "canonical" example of this is the real numbers. In implementations, we run up against things that are not quite mathematical, but we have to deal with the realities of finite and explicit computations.

[egourgoulhon]

Thanks for the changes!

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1 and set ticket back to needs_review. New commits:

​8ca1724

#30362: fix documentation

[egourgoulhon]

The documentation was broken after the change of filename symplectic_vector_space.py --> symplectic_space.py. This is fixed in the latest commit.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Thanks for the review and the fix!

[mkoeppe]

Looks good to me too.

[gh-mjungmath]

Last question: do we really need to import everything in the test files?

Otherwise, LGTM.

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Replying to gh-mjungmath:

Last question: do we really need to import everything in the test files?

Otherwise, LGTM.

Sadly yes, at the moment, since there are a few cyclic imports that are only resolved using the sage.all import.

[gh-mjungmath]

Then we should probably add a TODO comment so that we don't forget to rectify this in due course, no?

[vbraun]

Merge conflict

[git]

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

​b78d8a2

#30362: fix merge conflict

[egourgoulhon]

Merge conflict fixed.

[egourgoulhon]

Now that the branch has been merged in Sage 9.6.beta0 (unfortunately it did not make its way to Sage 9.5...), there remains a last thing to do: preparing some examples of use for ​Sage 9.6 release tour, on the same footing as what has been done for Sage 9.5: ​https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.5#Manifolds. I've just added an entry for this in ​Sage 9.6 release tour. Tobias, could you provide some nice examples?

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Is a copy&paste from the doctests good enough?

Should I paste it here then, or how does one get access to the wiki?

[tscrim]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

Is a copy&paste from the doctests good enough?

It would be a bit better to give a very quick summary and some simple example usage (which can by c/p from the doctests).

Should I paste it here then, or how does one get access to the wiki?

You can edit the wiki by logging in with your trac account info. I don't know if it works for gh authentication.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to egourgoulhon:

Now that the branch has been merged in Sage 9.6.beta0 (unfortunately it did not make its way to Sage 9.5...), there remains a last thing to do: preparing some examples of use for ​Sage 9.6 release tour, on the same footing as what has been done for Sage 9.5: ​https://wiki.sagemath.org/ReleaseTours/sage-9.5#Manifolds. I've just added an entry for this in ​Sage 9.6 release tour. Tobias, could you provide some nice examples?

Ping (since the release of Sage 9.6 seems to be close).

[egourgoulhon]

Another ping, pointing to the new release tour page, which is editable via a github login: ​https://trac.sagemath.org/wiki/ReleaseTours/sage-9.6?version=13#Symplecticmanifolds Tobias, would you have time to provide a few examples there?

[gh-tobiasdiez]

Sorry, I've been somewhat busy and forgot about this. Thanks for the reminder! I've now updated the release notes with a quick introduction.

[egourgoulhon]

Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:

I've now updated the release notes with a quick introduction.

Thanks!