Opened 18 months ago
Last modified 5 months ago
#31371 new enhancement
product of manifolds
Reported by: | mkoeppe | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-9.7 |
Component: | manifolds | Keywords: | |
Cc: | gh-mjungmath, egourgoulhon, tscrim, gh-tobiasdiez | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | ||
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
Taking the cartesian product of differentiable manifolds treats them as merely topological spaces.
sage: I = manifolds.OpenInterval(0, 1) sage: I Real interval (0, 1) sage: II = I.cartesian_product(I) sage: II.category() Category of Cartesian products of connected topological spaces
This can be improved.
Change History (22)
comment:1 Changed 18 months ago by
comment:2 follow-up: ↓ 3 Changed 18 months ago by
It's not just that the category needs adjusting; but actually we should add specific cartesian_product
methods that take products of charts etc
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 18 months ago by
Replying to mkoeppe:
It's not just that the category needs adjusting; but actually we should add specific
cartesian_product
methods that take products of charts etc
Indeed, Cartesian products of manifolds are not implemented yet. The method cartesian_product
inherited from the category framework works somehow:
sage: I = manifolds.OpenInterval(0, 1) sage: II = I.cartesian_product(I) sage: II.an_element() (Point on the Real interval (0, 1), Point on the Real interval (0, 1))
However the outcome is not a manifold:
sage: II.atlas() ... AttributeError: 'CartesianProduct_with_category' object has no attribute 'atlas'
I guess the outcome shall belong to a subclass of a manifold class, keeping track of the fact it is a Cartesian product. What is the usage in Sage? For instance, we have
sage: V = QQ^2 sage: V Vector space of dimension 2 over Rational Field sage: VV = V.cartesian_product(V) sage: VV The Cartesian product of (Vector space of dimension 2 over Rational Field, Vector space of dimension 2 over Rational Field) sage: dim(V) 2 sage: dim(VV) ... AttributeError: 'CartesianProduct_with_category' object has no attribute '_indices'
So it seems that the Cartesian product of vector spaces is not considered as a vector space.
comment:4 Changed 18 months ago by
That's right, also vector spaces are missing a specialization of this method. However, combinatorial free modules have an implementation:
sage: W = QQ^[1,2] sage: W Free module generated by {1, 2} over Rational Field sage: WW = W.cartesian_product(W) sage: WW Free module generated by {1, 2} over Rational Field (+) Free module generated by {1, 2} over Rational Field sage: dim(WW) 4
comment:5 Changed 18 months ago by
I know this is out of scope of this ticket, but I wanted to just say that for normal vector spaces, one way to do it would be to simply redirect to direct_sum
.
comment:6 Changed 18 months ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-9.3 to sage-9.4
Setting new milestone based on a cursory review of ticket status, priority, and last modification date.
comment:7 Changed 18 months ago by
It's about time that product manifolds will be added to the inventory. Shouldn't be too hard, at least on the level of charts. Question is: do we want to implement a whole new class such as CartesianProductManifold
that also has projection maps?
comment:8 Changed 18 months ago by
Yes, it should support the protocol of cartesian products of sets defined in sage.categories.sets_cat
, including cartesian_factors
and cartesian_projection
comment:9 follow-up: ↓ 10 Changed 18 months ago by
Maybe it's a good idea to directly implement the more general case of a fibred product $M \times_N M'$ for smooth maps $f, f': M \to N$ (one of them being a submersion). The charts are a bit more complicated, but this more general situation occurs quite often.
(Not sure if sage has an implementation of categorical pullbacks.)
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 18 months ago by
Replying to mkoeppe:
Yes, it should support the protocol of cartesian products of sets defined in
sage.categories.sets_cat
, includingcartesian_factors
andcartesian_projection
Thanks for the reference.
Replying to gh-tobiasdiez:
Maybe it's a good idea to directly implement the more general case of a fibred product $M \times_N M'$ for smooth maps $f, f': M \to N$ (one of them being a submersion). The charts are a bit more complicated, but this more general situation occurs quite often.
Sounds good.
Still, one question remains: should our new manifold keep track of changes in the factors or not? The former could result in quite annoying code-writing.
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 ; follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed 18 months ago by
Replying to gh-mjungmath:
Still, one question remains: should our new manifold keep track of changes in the factors or not? The former could result in quite annoying code-writing.
You could consider making it an error if the user tries to take the product of mutable manifolds.
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 18 months ago by
Replying to mkoeppe:
You could consider making it an error if the user tries to take the product of mutable manifolds.
Good idea. We should make it possible to turn (mutable) manifolds into immutable objects anyway. But I assume that needs a refactoring of the current use of UniqueRepresentation
.
Similarly for vector bundles (and their tensor products) btw.
comment:13 follow-up: ↓ 14 Changed 18 months ago by
The immutability would likely require a fairly big refactoring of the manifolds code to have checks when performing "mutations" of the manifold, such as adding a chart, frame, transition map, etc.
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 ; follow-up: ↓ 15 Changed 18 months ago by
Replying to tscrim:
The immutability would likely require a fairly big refactoring of the manifolds code to have checks when performing "mutations" of the manifold, such as adding a chart, frame, transition map, etc.
Does it? At least for the latter, one could use the mutability wrappers or _require_(im)mutable
method. That's fairly doable I'd say.
As for the UniqueRepresentation
part, I honestly don't know. That might be effortful.
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 14 ; follow-up: ↓ 16 Changed 18 months ago by
Replying to gh-mjungmath:
As for the
UniqueRepresentation
part, I honestly don't know. That might be effortful.
Yes it would be desirable to get rid of UniqueRepresentation
for manifolds. If I am correct, UniqueRepresentation
is used only to provide an effective pickling, which is mandatory for parallel computations.
comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 15 Changed 18 months ago by
Replying to egourgoulhon:
Replying to gh-mjungmath:
As for the
UniqueRepresentation
part, I honestly don't know. That might be effortful.Yes it would be desirable to get rid of
UniqueRepresentation
for manifolds. If I am correct,UniqueRepresentation
is used only to provide an effective pickling, which is mandatory for parallel computations.
Still on my to-do list........
@gh-mjungmath There are a lot of things that "change" the manifold. Thus, there would be a lot of methods that need to be altered to have immutability checks. There are also questions like, "Does creating a new k-form change the manifold?" In many ways, no, but it becomes tied to the manifold as it changes _vector_field_modules
attribute. Plus it is something you would want to naturally lift up to the product manifold.
comment:17 Changed 18 months ago by
A general question about this ticket: to what extent do we want the outcome of cartesian_product
keep track that it has been generated as a product? For instance, if
sage: S1 = manifolds.Sphere(1) sage: T2 = S1.cartesian_product(S1)
do we want
sage: T2.an_element() (Point on the 1-sphere S^1 of radius 1 smoothly embedded in the Euclidean plane E^2, Point on the 1-sphere S^1 of radius 1 smoothly embedded in the Euclidean plane E^2)
or something like
sage: T2.an_element() Point on S^1 x S^1
comment:18 Changed 18 months ago by
No preference here, as long as cartesian_projection
is implemented
comment:19 Changed 18 months ago by
I don't care so much either. Though, I think the latter is a bit neater.
comment:20 Changed 13 months ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-9.4 to sage-9.5
comment:21 Changed 8 months ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-9.5 to sage-9.6
comment:22 Changed 5 months ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-9.6 to sage-9.7
See
Algebras
for an example of how to do this. I am leaving for today right now and can push this tomorrow if someone else doesn't do it before then.