Opened 10 years ago
Last modified 5 years ago
#4513 needs_work enhancement
Action of MatrixGroup on a MPolynomialRing
Reported by: | SimonKing | Owned by: | SimonKing |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-6.4 |
Component: | commutative algebra | Keywords: | matrix group, action, polynomial ring |
Cc: | wdj, malb | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Simon King | Reviewers: | David Loeffler, William Stein |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
A group of n by n matrices over a field K acts on a polynomial ring with n variables over K. However, this is not implemented yet.
The following should work:
sage: M = Matrix(GF(3),[[1,2],[1,1]]) sage: N = Matrix(GF(3),[[2,2],[2,1]]) sage: G = MatrixGroup([M,N]) sage: m = G.0 sage: n = G.1 sage: R.<x,y> = GF(3)[] sage: m*x x + y sage: x*m x - y sage: (n*m)*x == n*(m*x) True sage: x*(n*m) == (x*n)*m True
On the other hand, we still want to have the usual action on vectors or matrices:
sage: x = vector([1,1]) sage: x*m (2, 0) sage: m*x (0, 2) sage: (n*m)*x == n*(m*x) True sage: x*(n*m) == (x*n)*m True
sage: x = matrix([[1,2],[1,1]]) sage: x*m [0 1] [2 0] sage: m*x [0 1] [2 0] sage: (n*m)*x == n*(m*x) True sage: x*(n*m) == (x*n)*m True
Attachments (4)
Change History (34)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
- Component changed from algebra to commutative algebra
- Owner changed from tbd to malb
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
- Summary changed from Action of MatrixGroup on a MPolynomialRing to [with patch, needs work] Action of MatrixGroup on a MPolynomialRing
The patch matrixgroupCall.patch
is without doctests, and I am not sure if it couldn't be done better. So, it needs more work.
For example, Martin mentioned the possibility (off list) to create a pyx file with a Cython function, and then the call method would use that function. It might pay off here, since there are tight loops and since the method has to deal with tuples or lists. So Cdefining might speed things up.
Opinions?
At least, the following now works:
sage: R.<x,y>=GF(3)[] sage: M=Matrix(GF(3),[[1,2],[1,1]]) sage: G=MatrixGroup([M]) sage: g=G.0 sage: p=x*y^2 sage: g(p) x^3 + x^2*y - x*y^2 - y^3
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
- Milestone set to sage-3.2.1
Changed 10 years ago by
call method for MatrixGroupelement? (this time with doc test) and left_matrix_action for MPolynomial
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
- Owner changed from malb to SimonKing
- Summary changed from [with patch, needs work] Action of MatrixGroup on a MPolynomialRing to [with patch, needs review] Action of MatrixGroup on a MPolynomialRing
Some changes:
Nicolas Thiéry suggested to implement the action of matrix groups by a method for polynomials (I call the method left_matrix_action
), and, for convenience, also provide a __call__
method for MatrixGroupElement? that refers to left_matrix_action
.
This has several advantages:
- The
__call__
works for any class that has aleft_matrix_action
method, hence, it is not a-priori restricted to polynomials. - I've put
left_matrix_action
intomulti_polynomial.pyx
, hence, I can use Cython.
I have two Cython concerns left:
- The innerst loop is
prod([Im[k]**X[k] for k in xrange(n)])
wherek
is c'defined asint
. Should this better be done in a for-loop, rather then creating a list and callingprod
? - The variable
X
is of typepolydict.ETuple
, so I can not directly c'defineX
. One could docdef tuple X for i from 0<i<l: X = tuple(Expo[i])
But would this be faster?
comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 10 years ago by
In matrixgroupCallNew.patch
(to be applied after the first patch), I modified the method according to my above concerns. In the example from my original post, the average running time improves from ~240 microseconds to 164 microseconds, and in a larger example it improved from 6.5s to 5.4s
Nevertheless, I made two separate patches, so that the reviewer (if there is any...) can compare by him- or herself.
Cheers
Simon
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 10 years ago by
One observation: Reverse the outer loop
for i from l>i>=0: X = tuple(Expo[i]) c = Coef[i] for k from 0<=k<n: if X[k]: c *= Im[k]**X[k] q += c
It results in a further improvement of computation time. Is this coincidence? Or is it since summation of polynomials should better start with the smallest summands?
Anyway, I didn't change the patch yet.
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
One observation: Reverse the outer loop
for i from l>i>=0: X = tuple(Expo[i]) c = Coef[i] for k from 0<=k<n: if X[k]: c *= Im[k]**X[k] q += cIt results in a further improvement of computation time. Is this coincidence? Or is it since summation of polynomials should better start with the smallest summands?
I made a couple of tests, and there was a small but consistent improvement. So, in the third patch (to be applied after the other two) I did it in that way.
The left_matrix_action
shall eventually be used for computing the Reynolds operator of a group action; moreover, the Reynolds operator should be applicable on a list of polynomials. Then, the function would repeatedly compute the image of the ring variables under the action of some group element. But then it would be better to compute that image only once and pass it to left_matrix_action
. The new patch provides this functionality. Example (continuing the original example):
sage: L=[X.left_matrix_action(g) for X in R.gens()] sage: p.left_matrix_action(L) x^3 + x^2*y - x*y^2 - y^3
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by
I did confirm that the patches apply cleanly, that
sage: M = Matrix(GF(3),[[1,2],[1,1]]) sage: G = MatrixGroup([M]) sage: g = G.0 sage: g [1 2] [1 1] sage: P.<x,y> = PolynomialRing(GF(3),2) sage: p = x*y^2 sage: g(p) x^3 + x^2*y - x*y^2 - y^3 sage: (x+2*y)*(x+y)^2 x^3 + x^2*y - x*y^2 - y^3
works, and that the code seems well-documented.
However, I can't do testing on this machine (intrepid ubuntu) and some of the code is written in Cython, which I can't really 100% vouch for. Seems okay though and simple enough. Since speed was a topic of the comments above, my only question is that the segment
396 for i from 0<=i<l: 397 X = Expo[i] 398 c = Coef[i] 399 q += c*prod([Im[k]**X[k] for k in xrange(n)])
could probably be rewritten as a one-line sum, which might (or might not) be faster.
Maybe Martin Albrecht could comment on the Cython code?
If Martin (for example) passes the Cython code, and the docstrings pass sage -testall, I would give it a positive review.
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by
cdef list Im if isinstance(M,list): Im = M
shouldn't Im = M take care of the type checking anyway, so that a try-except block is sufficient? Also, I think maybe the type of p should be checked in the __call__
method and a friendly error message raised? Not sure though.
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by
Cython code looks good (just read it).
comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by
- Summary changed from [with patch, needs review] Action of MatrixGroup on a MPolynomialRing to [with patch, needs work] Action of MatrixGroup on a MPolynomialRing
REFEREE REPORT:
Check this out:
sage: R.<x,y> = GF(3)[] sage: M=Matrix(GF(3),[[1,2],[1,1]]) sage: M2=Matrix(GF(3),[[1,2],[1,0]]) sage: G=MatrixGroup([M, M2]) sage: (G.0*G.1)(p) -x^2*y + x*y^2 - y^3 sage: G.0(G.1(p)) x^2*y + x*y^2 + y^3
Oops, your *left action* -- which it better be if you use that notation -- ain't a left action! Oops
-- William
comment:12 follow-up: ↓ 13 Changed 10 years ago by
Really Oops. Sorry.
I implemented it analogous to what is done in Singular. Perhaps I am mistaken in the sense that it is supposed to be a right action (which then would deserve another notation).
sage: (G.0(G.1((p)))) -x^2*y + x*y^2 - y^3 sage: (G.1*G.0)(p) -x^2*y + x*y^2 - y^3
However, I think it doesn't matter what Singular does. I will look up the literature whether one really wants a right or left action, and how the left action is supposed to be.
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
However, I think it doesn't matter what Singular does. I will look up the literature whether one really wants a right or left action...
I mean, something like "one has a left action on a variety, which gives rise to a right action on the coordinate ring". I have to sort it out.
If this is the case, then it should be better implemented in the __mul__
method of polynomials, isn't it? Such as
sage: p*G.1*G.0==p*(G.1*G.0) True
comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by
Left actions should use call, right actions should use *exponentiation*.
Substitution is a right action. Substitution of the *inverse* is a left action.
comment:15 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Report Upstream set to N/A
comment:16 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc wdj malb added
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
The new patch solves the problems addressed in the new ticket description.
I worked on top of several other tickets, since I somehow cared about number fields. To be precise, I did
hg_sage.import_patch('http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/raw-attachment/ticket/9205/trac_9205-discrete_log.patch') hg_sage.import_patch('http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/raw-attachment/ticket/9205/trac_9205-doctest.patch') hg_sage.import_patch('http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/raw-attachment/ticket/9438/trac_9438_IntegerMod_log_vs_PARI.patch') hg_sage.import_patch('http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/raw-attachment/ticket/9423/trac_9423_gap_for_numberfields.patch') hg_sage.import_patch('http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/raw-attachment/ticket/8909/8909_gap2cyclotomic.patch') hg_sage.import_patch('http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/raw-attachment/ticket/8909/trac_8909_catch_exception.patch') hg_sage.import_patch('http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/raw-attachment/ticket/5618/trac_5618_gap_for_cyclotomic_fields.patch')
before creating my pacth. But this shouldn't matter, I guess the patch applies cleanly to sage-4.4
.
comment:17 Changed 9 years ago by
- Summary changed from [with patch, needs work] Action of MatrixGroup on a MPolynomialRing to Action of MatrixGroup on a MPolynomialRing
comment:18 Changed 9 years ago by
I made Cc to malb and wdj, since it both concerns polynomials and groups.
comment:19 follow-up: ↓ 20 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Sorry to be a nag, but matrix_group_element.py doesn't pass the doctests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- matrix_group_element.py SCORE matrix_group_element.py: 87% (14 of 16) Missing documentation: * is_MatrixGroupElement(x): * __invert__(self): ----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the same doctest score that the old unpatched file gets too.
comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 19 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Replying to nharris:
Sorry to be a nag, but matrix_group_element.py doesn't pass the doctests:
Which one fails?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- matrix_group_element.py SCORE matrix_group_element.py: 87% (14 of 16) Missing documentation: * is_MatrixGroupElement(x): * __invert__(self): ----------------------------------------------------------------------This is the same doctest score that the old unpatched file gets too.
Of course there is no change. I added code to one already existing method, extending its functionality, and added tests for the new functionality. But this patch is not about inversion of matrix group elements, and I think the patch is not supposed to add documentation to methods that are not in its scope.
So, unless a doc test fails because of my patch, the criticism about not raising the doc test coverage is invalid.
comment:21 follow-up: ↓ 22 Changed 8 years ago by
I'm sorry if I did something that I shouldn't have. I was just following this guideline for reviewing patches (found here http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/trac.html#section-review-patches):
Is it documented sufficiently, including both explanation and doctests? This is very important: all code in Sage must have doctests, so even if the patch is for code which did not have a doctest before, the new version must include one. In particular, all new code must be 100% doctested. Use the command sage -coverage <files> to see the coverage percentage of <files>.
comment:22 in reply to: ↑ 21 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to nharris:
Is it documented sufficiently, including both explanation and doctests? This is very important: all code in Sage must have doctests, so even if the patch is for code which did not have a doctest before, the new version must include one. In particular, all new code must be 100% doctested. Use the command sage -coverage <files> to see the coverage percentage of <files>.
If you would read the patch, you would find:
- The patch adds one case to an existing method, namely
_act_on_
.
- The patch adds several doc tests to
_act_on_
, covering the new functionality.
- The original version of
_act_on_
already had a doc test.
In particular, it is impossible to detect the doc test change without reading the patch, by just using sage -coverage
: The coverage script detects whether _act_on_
has any test (this is the case with or without my patch), but it does not detect whether the patch extends existing documentation to cover a new case.
comment:23 Changed 8 years ago by
Apply trac-4513_matrix_action_on_polynomials.patch
(for patchbot -- it's trying to apply all the patches at once)
comment:24 Changed 8 years ago by
Apply trac-4513_matrix_action_on_polynomials.patch
(maybe it will work this time?)
comment:25 Changed 8 years ago by
Apply trac-4513_matrix_action_on_polynomials.patch
(For some reason patchbot's not picking this up -- I apologise to all human beings reading this for the spam!)
comment:26 Changed 8 years ago by
- Reviewers set to David Loeffler, William Stein
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
I've had a look at the patch, and I don't think you've addressed William's comment #14 from two years back. The following makes me *extremely* uneasy:
sage: G = GL(3, 7) sage: R.<a, b> = GF(7)[] sage: G.0 * a [3*a 0 0] [ 0 a 0] [ 0 0 a] sage: R.<a,b,c> = GF(7)[] sage: G.0 * a 3*a
It looks like there's some pre-existing coercion mechanism which returns elements of the matrix space over R, and you're overriding it in one case with an alternative coercion that returns completely different answers; this violates a Sage coercion axiom (where there are multiple paths in the coercion diagram, all must give the same answer up to numerical precision issues). Moreover, if you look at the patchbot logs it seems to have found an example where the preexisting coercion gets picked up instead of the new one.
Sorry, that's a thumbs down from me.
David
comment:27 Changed 6 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.11 to sage-5.12
comment:28 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.1 to sage-6.2
comment:29 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.2 to sage-6.3
comment:30 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.3 to sage-6.4
Sorry, in the above code I forgot to copy/paste the line
Moreover, for the reasons above, the ticket should belong to *commutative* algebra, not just algebra (I was clicking on the wrong button).