Opened 11 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#4539 closed enhancement (fixed)
plural wrapper
Reported by: | burcin | Owned by: | OleksandrMotsak, AlexanderDreyer |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.0 |
Component: | algebra | Keywords: | libsingular plural wrapper sd10 sd23.5 sd24 sd34 |
Cc: | saliola, mhansen, AlexanderDreyer, OleksandrMotsak, PolyBoRi, malb, SimonKing | Merged in: | sage-5.0.beta1 |
Authors: | Michael Brickenstein, Burcin Erocal, Oleksandr Motsak, Alexander Dreyer, Simon King | Reviewers: | Simon King, Alexander Dreyer |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | #11316, #11856, #10903, #9138, #11900, #11115, #11068, #11761 | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
During SD10 in Nancy, Michael Brickenstein and Burcin Erocal worked on making Plural (the non-commutative extension of Singular) accessible from Sage. Burcin and Michael also worked at the Plural wrapper on SD 23.5 in Kaiserslautern. Oleksandr Motsak and Alexander Dreyer continued this at SD 24 in Linz.
The patches that resulted from this work are attached.
Newest functionality:
- non-commutative rings/polynomials/ideals are fully featured classes now (no deriving from commutative ones)!
- coercion from basering/Integer types (still needs tests)
- flag to check degeneracy conditions on init
- relations for non-commutative rings
- most relevant functions for rings/polynomials/ideals (mostly adopted from MPolynomialRing_libsingular/MPolynomialRing_libsingular/...) e.g. std/twostd/syzygy_module/lc/lm/lt/monomial operations
- RingWrap? and TermOrder? were extended
- quick and dirty conversion of RingWrap? to Sage rings (needs some care as the resulting rings may not be unique and therefore may confuse coercion)
- quotient of a non-commutative ring by a two-sided Groebner basis
- shortcut to create graded commutative algebras: SCA
Possible topics that need work are:
- put the files in sage/algebra/ ???
- make sure element does not export functions it doesn't support (e.g. gcd)
- predefined structures from the library
Apply
Attachments (40)
Change History (167)
Changed 11 years ago by
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
- Summary changed from [with patch, needs work] plural wrapper to plural wrapper
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
- Cc saliola added
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
- Owner changed from tbd to burcin
- Report Upstream set to N/A
The letterplace interface in attachment:letterplace.py is now at #7797.
Changed 10 years ago by
appy on top of 1 and 2, new classes for plural objects which don't inherit from the commutative ones
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
sorry, for multiple files. Apply patches in this order:
plural_1.sage-4.4.4.patch plural_2.sage-4.4.4.patch plural_3.patch Download plural_functions.patch
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by
- Cc mhansen added
Changed 10 years ago by
i have just folded all the previous patches by Michael & Burcin into plural_folded-4.4.4.patch (should be applied before anything else)
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by
- Owner changed from burcin to OleksandrMotsak,AlexanderDreyer
Changed 10 years ago by
This folds of the following patches, a crucial subset of the noncommutation fucntionality as well as extensive documentation and doctests
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by
- Cc AlexanderDreyer added
We have an first release ready for reviewing!
Regards, Oleksandr and Alexander
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by
- Cc OleksandrMotsak PolyBoRi added
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by
- Cc malb SimonKing added
comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by
wow, that sounds awesome. You make me really happy. Can you outline in the ticket description, what the patch actually implements and what not.
comment:12 Changed 10 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:13 Changed 10 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
what is meant in "predefined structures from the library"?
Need input: what structures / what library?
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:15 Changed 10 years ago by
coverage to 100%
comment:16 Changed 10 years ago by
How to apply the patches? All and in the given order? Or is one of them a "master patch" that replaces several other patches
comment:17 Changed 10 years ago by
Just the following: plural-wrapper-2010-07-22.patch plural-missing-docu.2.patch
Regards,
Alexander
comment:18 Changed 10 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:19 Changed 10 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:20 Changed 10 years ago by
- Owner changed from OleksandrMotsak,AlexanderDreyer to OleksandrMotsak, AlexanderDreyer
comment:21 Changed 10 years ago by
Hi!
I have some computations to do with Weyl algebras, and would love to have this cool piece of work at my fingertips! Please keep it up!
For the record: I tried to apply those patches to Sage 4.5.2, and got the following rejects:
zephyr-/opt/sage/devel/sage>hg qimport ~/plural-wrapper-2010-07-27.patch adding plural-wrapper-2010-07-27.patch to series file zephyr-/opt/sage/devel/sage>hg qpush applying plural-wrapper-2010-07-27.patch patching file sage/libs/singular/function.pyx Hunk #3 succeeded at 96 with fuzz 2 (offset 0 lines). Hunk #36 FAILED at 1378 1 out of 38 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/libs/singular/function.pyx.rej patching file sage/libs/singular/singular-cdefs.pxi Hunk #3 succeeded at 218 with fuzz 2 (offset -1 lines). patching file sage/rings/ideal_monoid.py Hunk #1 FAILED at 12 1 out of 1 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/rings/ideal_monoid.py.rej patching file sage/rings/polynomial/term_order.py Hunk #1 FAILED at 419 1 out of 1 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/rings/polynomial/term_order.py.rej patch failed, unable to continue (try -v) patch failed, rejects left in working dir errors during apply, please fix and refresh plural-wrapper-2010-07-27.patch
Cheers,
comment:22 Changed 10 years ago by
Hi nthiery, Meanwhile, Burcin did a rebase? Does it help you?
Regards,
Alexander
comment:23 Changed 10 years ago by
Yes, it now applies smoothly on 4.5.2, and compiles. Thanks!
zephyr-~sage-main>sage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Sage Version 4.5.2, Release Date: 2010-08-05 | | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- sage: F.<x,dx> = FreeAlgebra(QQ,2) sage: F.g_algebra({dx*x: x*dx+1}) ------------------------------------------------------------ Unhandled SIGSEGV: A segmentation fault occurred in Sage. This probably occurred because a *compiled* component of Sage has a bug in it (typically accessing invalid memory) or is not properly wrapped with _sig_on, _sig_off. You might want to run Sage under gdb with 'sage -gdb' to debug this. Sage will now terminate (sorry). ------------------------------------------------------------
Same problem with the example taken from the documentation:
zephyr-~sage-main>sage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Sage Version 4.5.2, Release Date: 2010-08-05 | | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- sage: A.<x,y,z>=FreeAlgebra(QQ,3) sage: G=A.g_algebra({y*x:-x*y}) ------------------------------------------------------------ Unhandled SIGSEGV: A segmentation fault occurred in Sage. This probably occurred because a *compiled* component of Sage has a bug in it (typically accessing invalid memory) or is not properly wrapped with _sig_on, _sig_off. You might want to run Sage under gdb with 'sage -gdb' to debug this. Sage will now terminate (sorry). ------------------------------------------------------------
Should I be using 4.5.3 (being downloaded)?
comment:24 follow-up: ↓ 25 Changed 10 years ago by
Did you rebuild? (sage -br
)
comment:25 in reply to: ↑ 24 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:26 Changed 10 years ago by
I could reproduce the issue: sage -gdb
vields the following;
sage: A.<x,y,z>=FreeAlgebra(QQ,3) sage: G=A.g_algebra({y*x:-x*y}) Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x00007fffdec7c488 in __pyx_f_4sage_4libs_8singular_8function_call_function (__pyx_v_self=0x459f910, __pyx_v_args=0x4538ab8, __pyx_v_R=0x4676480, __pyx_optional_args=<value optimized out>) at sage/libs/singular/function.cpp:11969 11969 currRingHdl->data.uring->ref += 1;
comment:27 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
I didn't have a chance to test the rebased patch, I had to leave right after I finished merging the rejected parts. I just wanted to get it out there in case it worked.
I can also reproduce the crash. I'll take a look at it now and try to upload a patch that works.
comment:28 follow-up: ↓ 29 Changed 10 years ago by
It was indeed careless rebasing. attachment:plural-wrapper-2010-10-01.patch (patch with same name as before, to hide my shame :) ) seems to work.
Nicolas, it would be great if you could help with the review. We are pretty confident with the interface to Singular and low-level code, since, as you can also see from the comments on the ticket, many Singular and Sage developers were involved in writing the code. However, we added many of the noncommutative structures on the spot (in a late night coding sprint) as we needed them. Another pair of eyes checking the mathematical structures and design would be really useful.
Though I think we should try to get this patch in as soon as possible. I'm sure quite a few people would be interested in the functionality of Plural. We can always work on providing a better interface later, as the number of users/developers increases.
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 28 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to burcin:
It was indeed careless rebasing. attachment:plural-wrapper-2010-10-01.patch (patch with same name as before, to hide my shame :) ) seems to work.
It also does for me so far! Thanks a lot for the quick rebase!
Nicolas, it would be great if you could help with the review. We are pretty confident with the interface to Singular and low-level code, since, as you can also see from the comments on the ticket, many Singular and Sage developers were involved in writing the code. However, we added many of the noncommutative structures on the spot (in a late night coding sprint) as we needed them. Another pair of eyes checking the mathematical structures and design would be really useful.
I don't want to promise much at this time because I am already (very) late with a couple other reviews. But since the code is going to very useful for my research right now, I can promise to provide feedback for how it feels in practice!
Though I think we should try to get this patch in as soon as possible. I'm sure quite a few people would be interested in the functionality of Plural. We can always work on providing a better interface later, as the number of users/developers increases.
Sounds good to me!
comment:30 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:31 Changed 10 years ago by
Is it possible at this stage to define non commutative polynomial rings over QQq?.fraction_field()? I got an error with what I tried:
sage: K = QQ['q'].fraction_field() q = K.gen() F.<x,y,ex,ey> = FreeAlgebra(K,4) W = F.g_algebra({ex*x: x*(1+ex),ey*y:y*(1+ey)}) sage: ------------------------------------------------------------ Traceback (most recent call last): File "<ipython console>", line 1, in <module> File "/opt/sage-4.5.2/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/algebras/free_algebra.py", line 547, in g_algebra return NCPolynomialRing_plural(base_ring, n, ",".join([str(g) for g in self.gens()]), c=cmat, d=dmat, order=order, check=check) File "plural.pyx", line 223, in sage.rings.polynomial.plural.NCPolynomialRing_plural.__init__ (sage/rings/polynomial/plural.cpp:3772) File "matrix0.pyx", line 1520, in sage.matrix.matrix0.Matrix.change_ring (sage/matrix/matrix0.c:7670) File "/opt/sage-4.5.2/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/matrix/matrix_space.py", line 405, in __call__ return self.matrix(entries, copy=copy, coerce=coerce, rows=rows) File "/opt/sage-4.5.2/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/matrix/matrix_space.py", line 1136, in matrix return self.__matrix_class(self, entries=x, copy=copy, coerce=coerce) File "matrix_generic_dense.pyx", line 93, in sage.matrix.matrix_generic_dense.Matrix_generic_dense.__init__ (sage/matrix/matrix_generic_dense.c:2321) File "/opt/sage-4.5.2/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ring.py", line 468, in __call__ c = self.base_ring()(x) File "parent.pyx", line 859, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (sage/structure/parent.c:6407) File "coerce_maps.pyx", line 82, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:3108) File "coerce_maps.pyx", line 77, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:3010) File "/opt/sage-4.5.2/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/rings/fraction_field.py", line 467, in _element_constructor_ coerce=coerce, reduce = self.is_exact()) File "fraction_field_element.pyx", line 120, in sage.rings.fraction_field_element.FractionFieldElement.__init__ (sage/rings/fraction_field_element.c:1934) File "parent.pyx", line 859, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (sage/structure/parent.c:6407) File "coerce_maps.pyx", line 82, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:3108) File "coerce_maps.pyx", line 77, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:3010) File "/opt/sage-4.5.2/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_ring.py", line 313, in _element_constructor_ return C(self, x, check, is_gen, construct=construct, **kwds) File "/opt/sage-4.5.2/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element_generic.py", line 656, in __init__ x = [QQ(z) for z in x] File "parent.pyx", line 859, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (sage/structure/parent.c:6407) File "coerce_maps.pyx", line 82, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:3108) File "coerce_maps.pyx", line 77, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.DefaultConvertMap_unique._call_ (sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:3010) File "rational.pyx", line 367, in sage.rings.rational.Rational.__init__ (sage/rings/rational.c:5781) File "rational.pyx", line 521, in sage.rings.rational.Rational.__set_value (sage/rings/rational.c:7052) TypeError: Unable to coerce 0 (<class 'sage.algebras.free_algebra_element.FreeAlgebraElement'>) to Rational
Thanks!
comment:32 follow-ups: ↓ 33 ↓ 34 Changed 10 years ago by
I started playing with ideals. Currently, one creates an ideal I, and then when one calls I.std() or I.twostd() to create a new left or twosided ideal, and actually compute the Groebner basis. What about the following variants:
(A) Take the side decision at the time the ideal is created:
sage: I = W.ideal([...], side=...)
(to be documented in W.ideal?
).
With that, I
would be well defined as an ideal; otherwise it is
more a
collection of polynomials and the name is misleading.
(B) About computing the Grobner basis:
sage: I.groebner_basis()
or:
sage: I.std()
would compute the groebner basis, store it for later calculations, and return it as a list of polynomials rather than a new ideal.
I haven't actually played with ideals in Sage; so maybe point (B) is just how things are with commutative ideals in Sage, and consistency should take precedence.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:33 in reply to: ↑ 32 ; follow-up: ↓ 35 Changed 10 years ago by
Replying to nthiery:
I started playing with ideals. Currently, one creates an ideal I, and then when one calls I.std() or I.twostd() to create a new left or twosided ideal, and actually compute the Groebner basis. What about the following variants:
Currently, if R is a commutative ring and L is a list of elements of R, one may use the shorthand notation I = R*L
or I = L*R
to create an ideal. It seems natural to me to extend this to the non-commutative case: R*L
for left ideal, L*R
for right ideal, and R*L*R
for two-sided ideal.
How to implement it? Well, on could have a base class for ideals over non-commutative rings (let's call it NCIdeal
), and derive from it NCIdeal_left
, NCIdeal_right
, NCIdeal_twodsided
.
Then, one has to modify the multiplication method for rings so that sidedness is taken care of (there is a method ideal_class(), that probably needs to accept an optional argument "side"). And of course, the one-sided ideal classes need a multiplication method as well.
And then, NCIdeal_twodsided.groebner_basis()
would yield a two-sided Gröbner basis, while NCIdeal_left/right.groebner_basis()
would only yield a one-sided Gröbner basis, of course unless a two-sided Gröbner basis is requested by using an optional argument.
comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 32 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to nthiery:
I started playing with ideals. Currently, one creates an ideal I, and then when one calls I.std() or I.twostd() to create a new left or twosided ideal, and actually compute the Groebner basis.
By the way: right ideals are not yet handled yet, right? Would it be a lot of work? It's just that the ideals I am currently playing with are right ideals, and I keep mixing myself up when playing with the "dualized" version I had to write in Sage.
comment:35 in reply to: ↑ 33 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Simon!
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to nthiery:
I started playing with ideals. Currently, one creates an ideal I, and then when one calls I.std() or I.twostd() to create a new left or twosided ideal, and actually compute the Groebner basis. What about the following variants:
Currently, if R is a commutative ring and L is a list of elements of R, one may use the shorthand notation
I = R*L
orI = L*R
to create an ideal. It seems natural to me to extend this to the non-commutative case:R*L
for left ideal,L*R
for right ideal, andR*L*R
for two-sided ideal.
+1 for the implementation proposal!
I also like that shorthand syntax for interactive usage. However, in code, I prefer using something more explicit like R.ideal(L,side=...). Besides, having an R.ideal method also provides with:
- a good place for advertising (it appears in R.<tab>), documenting, testing the feature and its shorthand
- an easy way for subclasses of (the class of) R to override this method without having to worry about overloading/coercion/...
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:36 Changed 9 years ago by
Apply plural-wrapper-2010-10-01.patch
(to the patchbot)
If I understand correctly, this patch is the only one, right? So, it would be a good thing to try whether it needs to be rebased again.
Currently, I have a high motivation to have the noncommutative stuff (including letterplace!) in libsingular. So, I hope the work on this ticket and on #7797 can be resumed.
comment:37 Changed 9 years ago by
- Keywords libsingular plural wrapper added
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to Implement is_integral_domain and probably other small stuff
Apply trac4539_libplural.patch
It turned out that the old patch did not apply, since meanwhile the libsingular options are dealt with in a different way. I have rebased the patch, and also adopted the new option syntax.
However, not all is good. Here is one error that I just found:
sage: A.<x,y,z> = FreeAlgebra(QQ, 3) sage: H = A.g_algebra({y*x:x*y-z, z*x:x*z+2*x, z*y:y*z-2*y}) sage: H.inject_variables() Defining x, y, z sage: I = H.ideal([y^2, x^2, z^2-H.one_element()],coerce=False) sage: G = vector(I.gens()); G --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NotImplementedError Traceback (most recent call last) ... /mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.6.2/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/rings/ring.so in sage.rings.ring.Ring.is_integral_domain (sage/rings/ring.c:6035)() NotImplementedError:
So, there remains work to do!
comment:38 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
- Work issues Implement is_integral_domain and probably other small stuff deleted
The reason of the error was that FreeModule
tries (among other things) the method is_integral_domain()
. By default, it raises a NotImplementedError
, and this is the error we get above.
Proposed solution: Catch that NotImplementedError
and do as if is_integral_domain()
had returned False
.
I don't know if there will be further problems, but I'll put it back to "needs review".
comment:39 Changed 9 years ago by
Apply trac4539_libplural.patch
comment:40 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- I don't know why the patchbot is trying two patches. It is supposed to use only one of them.
- I get numerous doctest failures. Some of them look like severe errors. So, it needs work.
comment:41 Changed 9 years ago by
It would be great to have this in Sage!
I'm seeing some problems with the patch. First, it doesn't apply cleanly to Sage 4.7.alpha1. I haven't tried applying to 4.6.2. I rebased it by hand.
Second, the change
- block_name, block_length, _ = re.split(length_pattern,block) + block_name, block_length, _ = re.split(pattern, block.strip())
in term_order.py is problematic, because "pattern" is not defined anywhere. Replacing it by "length_pattern" seems to work.
Third, in multipolynomial_ideal.py, _groebner_basis_libsingular
is being called with keywords "deg_bound" and "mult_bound", but it doesn't accept those keywords as valid arguments. Should we add *args, **kwds
to the argument list? Or should those keywords be dealt with explicitly? I tried adding generic *args
and **kwds
, but doctesting on that file segfaults.
When I doctest the whole Sage library after making these changes, I get the following failures:
The following tests failed: sage -t -long -force_lib devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py # Killed/crashed sage -t -long -force_lib devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_libsingular.pyx # 1 doctests failed sage -t -long -force_lib devel/sage/sage/libs/singular/polynomial.pyx # 1 doctests failed sage -t -long -force_lib devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/plural.pyx # 6 doctests failed
On one machine, I also had this failure:
sage -t -long -force_lib devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial.pyx # Killed/crashed
comment:42 Changed 9 years ago by
I've rebased the patch to Sage 4.7. I'm not sure it's worth cluttering up this ticket with more patches, especially ones this big, so I've posted it to http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/palmieri/misc/trac_4539_libplural-rebased.patch. This patch also fixes a few docstrings, and it makes the changes that I described above, although I'm not sure they're the right thing to do.
comment:43 Changed 9 years ago by
- Keywords sd34 added
At sage days 34, we try to rebase the old patch. Burcin and I agree that we should rebase it with respect to #7797 (which, among other things, modernises coercion for free algebras). It also means that we can use one- and two-sided ideals in non-commutative rings, by #11068.
Some hunks of the latest patch fail due to other tickets that meanwhile are merged, such as #11316.
It seems to me that, out of the 5 hunks that fail, only 2 are non-trivial to fix.
comment:44 follow-up: ↓ 45 Changed 9 years ago by
Can you test, whether Attach:trac4539_libplural-2011-09-27-untested.patch does the job?
comment:45 in reply to: ↑ 44 ; follow-up: ↓ 46 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to AlexanderDreyer:
Can you test, whether Attach:trac4539_libplural-2011-09-27-untested.patch does the job?
We were just dubling the work, it seems. I had rebased my old patch and was running tests (don't know the outcome).
But is your patch relative to #11068 (and perhaps to #7797 as well)? #11068 already has a positive review, and since it adds one- and twosided ideals of non-commutative rings, it seems like a natural dependency for a plural wrapper.
comment:46 in reply to: ↑ 45 ; follow-up: ↓ 47 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
We were just dubling the work, it seems. I had rebased my old patch and was running tests (don't know the outcome). But is your patch relative to #11068 (and perhaps to #7797 as well)? #11068 already has a positive review, and since it adds one- and twosided ideals of non-commutative rings, it seems like a natural dependency for a plural wrapper.
Sorry, I thought rebasing couldn't be finished. But it seems, that something is wrong with my rebased patch. So you should post yours.
comment:47 in reply to: ↑ 46 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to AlexanderDreyer:
Sorry, I thought rebasing couldn't be finished. But it seems, that something is wrong with my rebased patch. So you should post yours.
Just foudn out, the patch was fine (so far), but my sage/devel directory was corrupted. (Luckily I cloned.)
comment:48 Changed 9 years ago by
I have attached my experimental rebasement (relative to #7797 on top of sage-4.7.2.alpha3), but not all is good.
There are quite a lot of doctest failures, including some very wrong arithmetical results in plural.pyx.
Less dramatic: There are some zero division errors (for example in doctests of mul
ti_polynomial_libsingular.pyx) where the expected error message was "rational division by zero", but now there is no error message (but there is a ZeroDivisionError
, at least).
There is a segment fault in the tests of multi_polynomial_ideal.py. I guess it is the same segfault that also occurs in some elliptic curves tests.
Alexander, when you said that your broken Sage installation was to blame: Do you mean that the tests are mostly passing with your patch?
comment:49 Changed 9 years ago by
I am now testing Alexander's patch. First good news: It applies without fuzz, even when #7797 is applied. Let's see how the doc tests work!
comment:50 follow-up: ↓ 52 Changed 9 years ago by
I started with "manually" testing against three of the doc test errors that I got with my patch. Two of them fail with Alexander's patch as well:
sage: P.<x,y,z> = QQ[] sage: x/0 Traceback (most recent call last): ... ZeroDivisionError:
--> The old error message "rational division by zero" has gone.
sage: (x*y).is_monomial() True sage: (2*y).is_monomial() False
--> That's better than my patch, where these return 1 and 0.
sage: (x+y^2^30)^10 x^10
--> That should result in an overflow error.
I didn't analyse the segmentation faults.
comment:51 Changed 9 years ago by
PS: Note that all these problems concern commutative polynomials.
comment:52 in reply to: ↑ 50 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
sage: P.<x,y,z> = QQ[] sage: x/0 Traceback (most recent call last): ... ZeroDivisionError?:
Here is the explanation:
Let P = QQ[x,y,z]
. Since coercion is now done properly, x/0 is first converting 0 into P and tries to invert it there. The result is a naked ZeroDivisionError
in
sage.libs.singular.polynomial.singular_polynomial_div_coeff.
Before, it used to invert 0 as a rational number, resulting in a ZeroDivisionError
with some error message.
Burcin and I agree that it is ok to have the ZeroDivisionError
without a message: What else could it state but "don't divide by zero"?
So, it is not an issue.
sage: (x*y).is_monomial() True sage: (2*y).is_monomial() False
I don't know why it has occured in the first place, but now it seems alright, even with my patch.
sage: (x+y^2^30)^10 x^10--> That should result in an overflow error.
It turns out that one gets the same stupid result with an unpatched sage-4.7.2.alpha2. Burcin told me that this patch is supposed to fix it. Apparently it fails, and we need to understand why it fails.
I didn't analyse the segmentation faults.
That will be next...
comment:53 follow-up: ↓ 54 Changed 9 years ago by
I created a new ticket #11856 for the (missing) overflow error.
comment:54 in reply to: ↑ 53 Changed 9 years ago by
- Dependencies set to #11856
comment:55 Changed 9 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #11856 to #7797 #11316 #11856
It seems that I was able to get the missing overflow error in #11856, which I added as a dependency. I had to update my patch (and Alexander will need to update his as well), because the function overflow_check is now expecting two arguments (a long and a ring), not one.
Tests are still missing, of course, and I have still no idea about the segfault.
Changed 9 years ago by
fixes at least some segfault (updated patch) - needs main patch applied before
comment:56 Changed 9 years ago by
I found out that the intended lmul implementation, namely using rmul and reverting left and right hand side, is an illegal for some right hand side objects. Up to now, this is only verified for schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_curve_isogeny.py More extensive tests follow.
comment:57 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Alexander, the description of your lmul patch says "needs main patch applied before". Which of the two main patches are you referring to?
comment:58 Changed 9 years ago by
Here another small patch reverts an unnecessary part of the big patch. It fixes the keyword argument not found issue.
Changed 9 years ago by
Changed 9 years ago by
Patch for using trac4539_libplural-2011-09-27-untested.patch together with #11856 (not needed for trac4539_libplural_todo.patch)
comment:59 Changed 9 years ago by
Concerning trac4539_monomial_quotient.patch: I am not sure if it is the right thing to do. I think that monomial_quotient is a method that should be as fast as possible, since in some situations it is used very frequently. In these situations, it is always the case that one monomial does divide the other. Hence, for the application, it is a bad idea to have a redundant sanity test in monomial_quotient. I'd rather have it return a wrong result when using it in a wrong way.
Note that trac4539_kwds.patch is not needed for my patch - I already have *args in it.
We have already briefly discussed why I think that trac4539_lmul.patch probably is not a good approach: x._rmul_(c) and x._lmul_(c) (by specification of the coercion model) can assume that the argument c belongs to x.parent().base_ring(). In particular, I don't believe that c can actually be a non-commutative polynomial.
Can you please provide an example that was segfaulting without the lmul-patch?
comment:60 Changed 9 years ago by
At least, when I use trac4539_libplural_todo.patch plus trac4539_lmul.patch on top of sage-4.7.3.alpha3-prerelease, then all tests in sage/rings/polynomial pass (except those that fail in the unpatched version as well).
Since I believe that the monomial quotient patch does not do the right thing, I'd prefer to work on top of trac4539_libplural_todo.patch and trac4539_lmul.patch, and concentrate on getting the lmul business right.
comment:61 Changed 9 years ago by
I can already confirm that ther is a segfault without the lmul patch. So, I'll try to analyse what arguments are passed to _rmul_ / _lmul_. If I remember correctly, polynomial rings do not use the current coercion model. Hence, it is perhaps no surprise that _rmul_ and _lmul_ do not do what we expect.
comment:62 Changed 9 years ago by
It is very strange: Apparently, a different lmul method fixes the segfault. However, when I insert a print statement in the unpatched lmul method, then I find that it is actually not executed directly before segfaulting.
Alexander, how did you found that a change in lmul could fix it?
comment:63 Changed 9 years ago by
Alexander has just explained the lmul problem to me. It was an oversight in the original patch, where self._lmul_(right) was calling right._rmul_(self), which is of course wrong, since the argument to _rmul_ must be an element of the base ring. It should correctly be self._rmul_(right).
Alexander just told me that he agrees in dropping the (redundant) test in monomial_quotient.
comment:64 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
The new trac4539_libplural.2.patch is stand-alone and is supposed to summarise the discussion we had here. I think it is ready to be reviewed (but as usual I didn't run the tests yet...).
Apply trac4539_libplural.2.patch
comment:65 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to detect the doctest with a verbosity side effect
I get a doctest failure in sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py. There, a protocol of a Gröbner basis computation is printed where we do not expect it.
The problem: If one runs the test separately, it works fine:
sage: A.<x,y,z> = FreeAlgebra(QQ, 3) sage: H = A.g_algebra({y*x:x*y-z, z*x:x*z+2*x, z*y:y*z-2*y}) sage: H.inject_variables() Defining x, y, z sage: I = H.ideal([y^2, x^2, z^2-H.one_element()],coerce=False) sage: G = vector(I.gens()); G /mnt/local/king/SAGE/debug/sage-4.7.2.alpha3-prerelease/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/modules/free_module.py:366: UserWarning: You are constructing a free module over a noncommutative ring. Sage does not have a concept of left/right and both sided modules, so be careful. It's also not guaranteed that all multiplications are done from the right side. not guaranteed that all multiplications are done from the right side.""") /mnt/local/king/SAGE/debug/sage-4.7.2.alpha3-prerelease/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/modules/free_module.py:584: UserWarning: You are constructing a free module over a noncommutative ring. Sage does not have a concept of left/right and both sided modules be careful. It's also not guarantied that all multiplications are done from the right side. warn("""You are constructing a free module over a noncommutative ring. Sage does not have a concept of left/right and both sided modules be careful. It's also not guarantied that all multiplications are done from the right side.""") (y^2, x^2, z^2 - 1)
But the same doctest executed as part of the doctest suite has a
std in (0),(x,y),(dp(2),C) [4294967295:2]3ss4s6 (S:2)-- product criterion:1 chain criterion:0
printed after (!!) the result.
So, apparently another test has a side effect. I tried to identify it (e.g., a test that sets verbosity and forgets to reset it), but I did not succeed. Also I wonder why one first sees the result and only later sees the protocol.
comment:66 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Keywords sd10 sd23.5 sd24 added
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
It turned out that I misinterpreted the error: The actual error was wrong line breaks in the expected warning message. The protocol from Singular is printed to stdout, and apparently it was just by accident (though reproducible) that I saw it in the test log.
Note that the warning message misspells the word "guaranteed" (namely "guarantied"). I fixed that misspelling as well, and I also introduced nicer (I think) line breaks for the warning.
Glad that this is fixed. I hope the tests pass by now.
Apply trac4539_libplural.patch
comment:67 Changed 9 years ago by
FWIW, all doctests pass for me, except those that fail with unpatched sage-4.7.2.alpha3-prerelease.
By the way: How should reviewing be done in this case? I have no overview who wrote what (i.e., who can review what), and I think many people contributed to it.
In trac4539_libplural.patch, I added an author list. But is it exhaustive?
comment:68 Changed 9 years ago by
Concerning reviewing: Would it be OK that we all comment whether we are happy with the current patch, and that it constitutes a positive review if all are happy with it and nobody has a veto? Martin seems to agree.
comment:69 Changed 9 years ago by
I am writing a reviewer patch, since several doc strings needs reformatting.
Question:
In sage/algebras/free_algebra.py in the method g_algebra, I find the statement: "By default is assumed, that two variables commute." I don't understand that statement. Is it meant "If there are only two variables then they commute"? Or "Any two variables commute" (hopefully not)? Or "There are two variables that commute" (but which)? Can you provide an example for that default, and also show how (if possible) the default can be overridden?
comment:70 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
PS: The other statements
- Coercion doesn't work yet, there is some cheating about assumptions - The optional argument ``check`` controls checking the degeneracy conditions. Furthermore, the default values interfere with non-degeneracy conditions.
aren't clear to me either.
- What does "cheating about assumptions" mean (what are the assumptions)?
- What exactly does not work in coercion (perhaps I can fix it?)?
- What are "the default values" (the only default is
order="degrevlex"
)? - How do they interfere with non-degeneracy conditions? What are these conditions?
comment:71 Changed 9 years ago by
comment:72 Changed 9 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #7797 #11316 #11856 to #11068 #11316 #11856
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
comment:73 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues changed from detect the doctest with a verbosity side effect to rebase wrt #11068; doc string formatting
comment:74 Changed 9 years ago by
- Work issues changed from rebase wrt #11068; doc string formatting to Pickling. Quotients. Uniqueness.
Here's a report on features that I implemented today (not posted yet), missing features, and I also have some questions for you:
Sidedness of ideals
By #11068, we can have one- and two-sided ideals. Oleksander told me that Singular can only compute left or twosided Gröbner bases. Therefore, I think non-commutative polynomial ideals should refuse to be right-sided. The default should be left ideal. If the ideal is defined as a two-sided ideal, then std should return the same as twostd. Here is an example:
sage: A.<x,y,z> = FreeAlgebra(QQ, 3) sage: H = A.g_algebra({y*x:x*y-z, z*x:x*z+2*x, z*y:y*z-2*y}) sage: H.inject_variables() Defining x, y, z sage: JL = H.ideal([x^3, y^3, z^3 - 4*z]) sage: JL Left Ideal (x^3, y^3, z^3 - 4*z) of Noncommutative Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field, nc-relations: {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x} sage: JL.std() Left Ideal (z^3 - 4*z, y*z^2 - 2*y*z, x*z^2 + 2*x*z, 2*x*y*z - z^2 - 2*z, y^3, x^3) of Noncommutative Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field, nc-relations: {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x} sage: JT = H.ideal([x^3, y^3, z^3 - 4*z], side='twosided') sage: JT Twosided Ideal (x^3, y^3, z^3 - 4*z) of Noncommutative Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field, nc-relations: {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x} sage: JT.std() Twosided Ideal (z^3 - 4*z, y*z^2 - 2*y*z, x*z^2 + 2*x*z, y^2*z - 2*y^2, 2*x*y*z - z^2 - 2*z, x^2*z + 2*x^2, y^3, x*y^2 - y*z, x^2*y - x*z - 2*x, x^3) of Noncommutative Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field, nc-relations: {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x} sage: JT.std() == JL.twostd() True
I think that's a good solution.
Cache
I added a cached_method decorator to std and twostd - I guess it is obvious that the result of a GB computation should be cached.
Question: Should g-algebras be unique parents? If you agree that they should be, then I can try to implement it.
Category
A proper initialisation of non-commutative polynomial rings in the category of algebras was missing and is now added:
sage: H._is_category_initialized() True sage: H.category() Category of algebras over Rational Field
Pickling
The test suite does not pass. Among other things, pickling of g-algebras has simply been forgotten. This certainly must be fixed:
sage: dumps(H) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TypeError Traceback (most recent call last) ... TypeError: expected string or Unicode object, NoneType found
It could be that, by using a UniqueFactory
or UniqueRepresentation
, the pickling problem automatically vanishes. Otherwise, a __reduce__
method must be implemented.
Generator names for g-algebras
It should be possible to choose names in the g_algebra()
method.
Quotients
There is a custom quotient()
method for g-algebras (not using #11068). The question is: Is that really a quotient? It isn't printed as such, and the quotient relations are not used in arithmetic nor in comparison:
sage: A.<x,y,z> = FreeAlgebra(QQ, 3) sage: H = A.g_algebra({y*x:x*y-z, z*x:x*z+2*x, z*y:y*z-2*y}) sage: H.inject_variables() Defining x, y, z sage: I = H.ideal([y^2, x^2, z^2-H.one_element()],coerce=False) sage: Q = H.quotient(I); Q Noncommutative Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field, nc-relations: {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x} sage: Q.relations() {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x} sage: I.twostd() Twosided Ideal (z^2 - 1, y*z - y, x*z + x, y^2, 2*x*y - z - 1, x^2) of Noncommutative Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field, nc-relations: {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x} sage: Q.2^2 z^2 sage: Q.2^2 == Q.one_element() False
Question: Did I misinterprete it? Hence, is there a way to make Q show that Q.2^2
is equal to one?
Otherwise, the custom quotient()
should be dropped. #11068 provides the framework for nc-quotient rings; one just needs to add a I.reduce(p)
method to our ideals (which is missing anyway).
Doc strings
I fixed various wrong doc string formats. Of course, after the changes mentioned above, some doc tests need to be modified.
comment:75 Changed 9 years ago by
New patch posted! It does what I have announced above. I suggest that the next step should be to provide pickling, possibly by using UniqueRepresentation
.
comment:76 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
The patch that I have just attached provides uniqueness of the parent (using a UniqueFactory
) and pickling for nc rings and polynomials.
In short:
sage: A.<x,y,z> = FreeAlgebra(QQ, 3) sage: H = A.g_algebra({y*x:x*y-z, z*x:x*z+2*x, z*y:y*z-2*y}) sage: H is loads(dumps(H)) True sage: TestSuite(H).run()
Doc tests still need to be updated, though. I also think that normal form computation should be easy to implement.
Apply trac4539_libplural.patch trac4539_pickling.patch
comment:77 Changed 9 years ago by
- Work issues changed from Pickling. Quotients. Uniqueness. to Quotients and normal forms
comment:78 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
I have updated the second patch (adding a commit message), and I added a third patch. It provides a non-commutative "Gröbner strategy", normal form computation, and thus quotient rings of g-algebras.
Note that the quotients use the general framework from #11068. They should simply be g-algebras as well. But I suggest that this will be done on a different ticket.
With the new patch, one can do:
sage: A.<x,y,z> = FreeAlgebra(QQ, 3) sage: H.<x,y,z> = A.g_algebra({y*x:x*y-z, z*x:x*z+2*x, z*y:y*z-2*y}) sage: I = H.ideal([y^2, x^2, z^2-H.one_element()],coerce=False, side='twosided') sage: Q = H.quotient(I); Q Quotient of Noncommutative Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field, nc-relations: {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x} by the ideal (y^2, x^2, z^2 - 1) sage: Q.2^2 == Q.one_element() # indirect doctest True
Here, we see that the relation that we just found in the quotient is actually a consequence of the given relations:
sage: I.twostd() Twosided Ideal (z^2 - 1, y*z - y, x*z + x, y^2, 2*x*y - z - 1, x^2) of Noncommutative Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field, nc-relations: {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x}
Note that reduction of polynomials by a list of polynomials is, in general, not a normal form. However, reduction of a polynomial by an ideal uses a two-sided Gröbner basis and is thus a normal form.
I just thought that it would better be reduction by a left Gröbner basis, if the ideal is just a left ideal. OK, doing it soon...
Apply trac4539_libplural.patch trac4539_pickling.patch trac4539_normal_forms.patch
comment:79 Changed 9 years ago by
- Work issues changed from Quotients and normal forms to doc tests
The third patch is now modified, so that reduction wrt a left ideal is computed with a left (not a two-sided) Gröbner basis.
It needs work, since the documentation is not complete and since certainly several doc tests need to be modified. But feel free to test the new patches...
comment:80 Changed 9 years ago by
Sorry, I couldn't resist to add one more feature: Ideal containment, which is a direct application of normal form computation.
With the new version of the third patch, we have:
sage: A.<x,y,z> = FreeAlgebra(QQ, 3) sage: H.<x,y,z> = A.g_algebra({y*x:x*y-z, z*x:x*z+2*x, z*y:y*z-2*y}) sage: JL = H.ideal([x^3, y^3, z^3 - 4*z]) sage: JL.std() Left Ideal (z^3 - 4*z, y*z^2 - 2*y*z, x*z^2 + 2*x*z, 2*x*y*z - z^2 - 2*z, y^3, x^3) of Noncommutative Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field, nc-relations: {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x} sage: JT = H.ideal([x^3, y^3, z^3 - 4*z], side='twosided') sage: JT.std() Twosided Ideal (z^3 - 4*z, y*z^2 - 2*y*z, x*z^2 + 2*x*z, y^2*z - 2*y^2, 2*x*y*z - z^2 - 2*z, x^2*z + 2*x^2, y^3, x*y^2 - y*z, x^2*y - x*z - 2*x, x^3) of Noncommutative Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field, nc-relations: {y*x: x*y - z, z*y: y*z - 2*y, z*x: x*z + 2*x}
Apparently, x*y^{2-y*z should be in the two-sided, but not in the left ideal. And that is indeed what we get:
}
sage: x*y^2-y*z in JL False sage: x*y^2-y*z in JT True
Docs are still to fix. And I promise to focus on it - no new features...
Apply trac4539_libplural.patch trac4539_pickling.patch trac4539_normal_forms.patch
comment:81 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Reviewers set to Simon King
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
- Work issues doc tests deleted
The fourth patch does not provide a new feature, but only fixes of bugs, of the doc string formatting, and of the doc tests.
Since I do not have Sage locally, I'd appreciate if one of you could build the documentation and see if it looks nice.
Not a feature, but a fix concerns the hash: If one constructs a g-algebra as one is supposed to (g_algeba
method resp. unique factory) then the g-algebra is a unique parent. Hence, id(self)
is a good hash for it, and __cmp__
can be removed.
Note that the hash in Sage is allowed to change from session to session, so, id(self)
is fine - see UniqueRepresentation.__hash__
. Of course, one can destroy the uniqueness on purpose, but that's not our problem.
Tests in sage/libs/singular, multi_polynomial_ideal.py and plural.pyx pass. I am now running all doc tests, but I think it is OK to put it as "needs review".
Concerning review: I think we should review each other's code. So, in particular, one of you should please review my last three patches.
Please verify if I got the credits (author list) right.
Apply trac4539_libplural.patch trac4539_pickling.patch trac4539_normal_forms.patch trac4539_fix_docs.patch
comment:82 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to fix remaining doctest errors
Hoorray, only three errors, in sage/rings/noncommutative_ideal.pyx! That should be doable before dinner.
comment:83 follow-up: ↓ 84 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
It turned out that the element constructor of ideal monoids changed a left ideal into a twosided ideal, which (together with the missing uniqueness of ideal monoids) led to errors in a loads(dumps(...)==...
test.
I hope all tests will pass by now!
Apply trac4539_libplural.patch trac4539_pickling.patch trac4539_normal_forms.patch trac4539_fix_docs.patch
comment:84 in reply to: ↑ 83 Changed 9 years ago by
- Work issues fix remaining doctest errors deleted
comment:85 Changed 9 years ago by
I checked the patches, the look good indeed. So a positive review for the mathematical part. I'm starting doc tests now.
comment:86 follow-up: ↓ 87 Changed 9 years ago by
Hm, trac4539_fix_docs.patch doesn't apply cleanly, maybe i used the wrong order. What does the following tell you?
hg qseries
comment:87 in reply to: ↑ 86 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to AlexanderDreyer:
Hm, trac4539_fix_docs.patch doesn't apply cleanly, maybe i used the wrong order. What does the following tell you?
hg qseries trac11815_format_must_preserve_embedding.patch trac11817_question_mark_using_sage_getdoc.patch trac11768_source_of_dynamic_class.patch trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch trac11791_dynamic_metaclass_introspection.patch trac11780_unique_auxiliar_polyring.patch trac11856_exponent_overflow.patch trac11068_nc_ideals_and_quotients.patch trac11068_quotient_ring_without_names.patch trac11068_lifting_map.patch trac4539_libplural.patch trac4539_pickling.patch trac4539_normal_forms.patch trac4539_fix_docs.patch
So, as you can see, I indeed have more stuff applied in front of the plural patches. I will try to see what went wrong.
comment:88 follow-up: ↓ 90 Changed 9 years ago by
I can not confirm Alexander's statement that some patch does not apply.
I cleaned my patch queue, so that I only use the patches that are dependencies. Now, I have
$ hg qapplied trac11815_format_must_preserve_embedding.patch trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch trac11068_nc_ideals_and_quotients.patch trac11068_quotient_ring_without_names.patch trac11068_lifting_map.patch trac11856_exponent_overflow.patch trac4539_libplural.patch trac4539_pickling.patch trac4539_normal_forms.patch trac4539_fix_docs.patch
on top of sage-4.7.2.alpha3-prerelease.
One remark: It happened to me recently that I tried to qimport a patch from trac, but my university had a proxy, and for some reason it thought that the patch is cached. I therefore switched the cache off, for the computer in my office. That is where I test the patches.
But Burcin just told me that they have a proxy here as well. So, could it be that you tried to download the latest patch version, but your proxy only provided you with a cached but outdated version of the patches?
The other possibility is that I thought I have posted the patch version that I have on my computer in my office, but in fact posted an outdated version that I have on my netbook here. Testing it now.
comment:89 Changed 9 years ago by
See #11878 for quotients of g-algebras.
comment:90 in reply to: ↑ 88 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
I can not confirm Alexander's statement that some patch does not apply.
Yeah, I just mixed up the order of the following patches:
trac4539_pickling.patch trac4539_normal_forms.patch
Already the first didn't apply cleanly, but I overlooked. It built fine and the tests are running.
comment:91 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
I found that the function new_NRing
, that is supposed to return a valid NCPolynomialRing_plural
out of a ring wrap, is broken. Important data, namely the matrices c and d, are left as None
. Hence, for a ring produced with new_NRing
, pickling won't work at all.
The question is whether we can leave it broken for now, and fix it separately, or leave this ticket open and "needs work". How shall we proceed?
comment:92 follow-up: ↓ 93 Changed 9 years ago by
PS: Even if it returns a valid picklable ring, uniqueness of parents would break. So, we should analyse whether new_NRing
is used in a critical (uniqueness-breaking) way in the current patch.
comment:93 in reply to: ↑ 92 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
PS: Even if it returns a valid picklable ring, uniqueness of parents would break. So, we should analyse whether
new_NRing
is used in a critical (uniqueness-breaking) way in the current patch.
It concerncs the SCA
function and the original approach towards quotients.
comment:94 follow-up: ↓ 95 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
I suggest that we leave stuff as it is now, so that it can be merged and we can build on top of it. Therefore, I revert it to "needs review".
If I am not mistaken, SCA
is a special case in Singular anyway, and it is a huge difference whether one works in an SCA
or in an isomorphic general g-algebra quotient (Oleksandr, could you tell how the ring should be created in this case? I guess the function SCA
in the patch does not do the right thing).
I believe that there should be a sub-class of NCPolynomialRing_plural
for general quotients of g-algebras, and then a sub-sub-class for SCA that uses the specialised implementation from Singular. But that should be on #11878.
comment:95 in reply to: ↑ 94 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
If I am not mistaken,
SCA
is a special case in Singular anyway, and it is a huge difference whether one works in anSCA
or in an isomorphic general g-algebra quotient (Oleksandr, could you tell how the ring should be created in this case? I guess the functionSCA
in the patch does not do the right thing).
SCA structure is _autodetected_ upon creation of a GR-algebra (qring
) in runtime. Therefore one should not use an extra method for this: just create a GRing and its quotient by correct twosided ideal there.
Test: if SCA implementation is used then y*y == 0;
for each non-commutative (odd degree) variable y
.
comment:96 follow-up: ↓ 97 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from Simon King to Simon King, Alexander Dreyer
One doctest failed on OSX 10.5 PPC. This is fixed in the attached patch. Since we postponed the quotient issue, I think I can give a positive review for Simon's work as well as for Michael's, Burcin's and Oleksandr's part , which I reviewed on SD24.
@Simon: If you accept my part we would have a positive review now.
comment:97 in reply to: ↑ 96 ; follow-up: ↓ 98 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
Replying to AlexanderDreyer:
One doctest failed on OSX 10.5 PPC. This is fixed in the attached patch.
It looks like this error already occurs #11856 - can you verify whether the error occurs on 32-bit with #11856? Then it might be better to post your patch there.
@Simon: If you accept my part we would have a positive review now.
The "big" patch merely combines work of y'all, and I certainly give the stuff there a positive review. However, the question on #11856 should first be answered.
comment:98 in reply to: ↑ 97 ; follow-up: ↓ 99 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to AlexanderDreyer:
One doctest failed on OSX 10.5 PPC. This is fixed in the attached patch.
It looks like this error already occurs #11856 - can you verify whether the error occurs on 32-bit with #11856? Then it might be better to post your patch there.
Indeed, I already had to apply http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/4539/trac4539_fix_docs_32bit.patch to #11856 on 32-bit systems.
comment:99 in reply to: ↑ 98 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to AlexanderDreyer:
Indeed, I already had to apply http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/4539/trac4539_fix_docs_32bit.patch to #11856 on 32-bit systems.
OK, then trac4539_fix_docs_32bit.patch should better be moved to #11856 - since it only concerns doctests in the obvious way, but does not change the code, I think that your patch can be a reviewer patch for #11856, thus, preserving the positive review that Martin gave (but then add your name in the "Reviewer" field of #11856).
If that's done, then I'll try the stuff from here again, and then hopefully it can be turned into a positive review.
comment:100 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
comment:101 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Now 32 bit issue was solved in #11856 (and has positive review again).
comment:102 Changed 9 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.7.2 to sage-4.7.3
comment:103 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to Rebase wrt 4.7.3.alpha3 and #10903
comment:104 Changed 9 years ago by
comment:105 follow-up: ↓ 106 Changed 9 years ago by
n_IsOne
was replaced by ring.cf.nIsOne(foo)
. We didn't remove any functionality, only replaced it by calls which are more explicit about the ring. If in doubt just ask :)
comment:106 in reply to: ↑ 105 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to malb:
n_IsOne
was replaced byring.cf.nIsOne(foo)
. We didn't remove any functionality, only replaced it by calls which are more explicit about the ring. If in doubt just ask :)
Yep, I already found the replacement (by doing a grep for n_IsOne
in my .hg/patches
, when I wanted to find out where that function came from).
comment:107 Changed 9 years ago by
I didn't post my rebased patches yet, since I need to fix a few doctest errors.
Actually, the first error is a clear improvement. We have the following doctest:
sage: A.<x,y,z> = FreeAlgebra(QQ, 3) sage: H = A.g_algebra({y*x:x*y-z, z*x:x*z+2*x, z*y:y*z-2*y}) sage: H.inject_variables() Defining x, y, z sage: I = H.ideal([y^2, x^2, z^2-H.one_element()],coerce=False) sage: G = vector(I.gens()); G d...: UserWarning: You are constructing a free module over a noncommutative ring. Sage does not have a concept of left/right and both sided modules, so be careful. It's also not guaranteed that all multiplications are done from the right side. d...: UserWarning: You are constructing a free module over a noncommutative ring. Sage does not have a concept of left/right and both sided modules, so be careful. It's also not guaranteed that all multiplications are done from the right side. (y^2, x^2, z^2 - 1) sage: M = I.syzygy_module()
With #10903 applied, one gets 9 Syzygies:
sage: M[0] (-z^2 - 8*z - 15, 0, y^2) sage: M[1] (0, -z^2 + 8*z - 15, x^2) sage: M[2] (x^2*z^2 + 8*x^2*z + 15*x^2, -y^2*z^2 + 8*y^2*z - 15*y^2, -4*x*y*z + 2*z^2 + 2*z) sage: M[3] (x^2*y*z^2 + 9*x^2*y*z - 6*x*z^3 + 20*x^2*y - 72*x*z^2 - 282*x*z - 360*x, -y^3*z^2 + 7*y^3*z - 12*y^3, 6*y*z^2) sage: M[4] (x^3*z^2 + 7*x^3*z + 12*x^3, -x*y^2*z^2 + 9*x*y^2*z - 4*y*z^3 - 20*x*y^2 + 52*y*z^2 - 224*y*z + 320*y, -6*x*z^2) sage: M[5] (x^2*y^2*z + 4*x^2*y^2 - 8*x*y*z^2 - 48*x*y*z + 12*z^3 - 64*x*y + 108*z^2 + 312*z + 288, -y^4*z + 4*y^4, 0) sage: M[6] (2*x^3*y*z + 8*x^3*y + 9*x^2*z + 27*x^2, -2*x*y^3*z + 8*x*y^3 - 12*y^2*z^2 + 99*y^2*z - 195*y^2, -36*x*y*z + 24*z^2 + 18*z) sage: M[7] (x^4*z + 4*x^4, -x^2*y^2*z + 4*x^2*y^2 - 4*x*y*z^2 + 32*x*y*z - 6*z^3 - 64*x*y + 66*z^2 - 240*z + 288, 0) sage: M[8] (x^3*y^2*z + 4*x^3*y^2 + 18*x^2*y*z - 36*x*z^3 + 66*x^2*y - 432*x*z^2 - 1656*x*z - 2052*x, -x*y^4*z + 4*x*y^4 - 8*y^3*z^2 + 62*y^3*z - 114*y^3, 48*y*z^2 - 36*y*z) sage: M[9] Traceback (most recent call last): ... IndexError: matrix index out of range
However, without #10903 (and with the original patches applied), one gets what is expected in the doc tests, namely 10 Syzygies -- but two of them are identical:
sage: M[0] (-z^2 - 8*z - 15, 0, y^2) sage: M[1] (0, -z^2 + 8*z - 15, x^2) sage: M[2] (x^2*z^2 + 8*x^2*z + 15*x^2, -y^2*z^2 + 8*y^2*z - 15*y^2, -4*x*y*z + 2*z^2 + 2*z) sage: M[3] (x^2*y*z^2 + 9*x^2*y*z - 6*x*z^3 + 20*x^2*y - 72*x*z^2 - 282*x*z - 360*x, -y^3*z^2 + 7*y^3*z - 12*y^3, 6*y*z^2) sage: M[4] (x^3*z^2 + 7*x^3*z + 12*x^3, -x*y^2*z^2 + 9*x*y^2*z - 4*y*z^3 - 20*x*y^2 + 52*y*z^2 - 224*y*z + 320*y, -6*x*z^2) sage: M[5] (x^2*y^2*z + 4*x^2*y^2 - 8*x*y*z^2 - 48*x*y*z + 12*z^3 - 64*x*y + 108*z^2 + 312*z + 288, -y^4*z + 4*y^4, 0) sage: M[6] (2*x^3*y*z + 8*x^3*y + 9*x^2*z + 27*x^2, -2*x*y^3*z + 8*x*y^3 - 12*y^2*z^2 + 99*y^2*z - 195*y^2, -36*x*y*z + 24*z^2 + 18*z) sage: M[7] (2*x^3*y*z + 8*x^3*y + 9*x^2*z + 27*x^2, -2*x*y^3*z + 8*x*y^3 - 12*y^2*z^2 + 99*y^2*z - 195*y^2, -36*x*y*z + 24*z^2 + 18*z) sage: M[8] (x^4*z + 4*x^4, -x^2*y^2*z + 4*x^2*y^2 - 4*x*y*z^2 + 32*x*y*z - 6*z^3 - 64*x*y + 66*z^2 - 240*z + 288, 0) sage: M[9] (x^3*y^2*z + 4*x^3*y^2 + 18*x^2*y*z - 36*x*z^3 + 66*x^2*y - 432*x*z^2 - 1656*x*z - 2052*x, -x*y^4*z + 4*x*y^4 - 8*y^3*z^2 + 62*y^3*z - 114*y^3, 48*y*z^2 - 36*y*z) sage: M[7]==M[6] True
So, the old Singular version forgot to remove a redundant Syzygy.
comment:108 Changed 9 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #11068 #11316 #11856 to #11068 #11316 #11856 #10903
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
- Work issues Rebase wrt 4.7.3.alpha3 and #10903 deleted
Hoorray! The other doctest error was even easier to fix: It has been a new test, and I simply had a typo in it.
Because of #11339 and #10903, I had to change some lines in the code. In order to make the changes more easily visible, I attached the new patches under a new name, so that you can compare them with the old patches.
Could you please have a look whether we can return to the positive review?
Apply trac4539_libplural_rel10903.patch trac4539_pickling_rel10903.patch trac4539_normal_forms_rel10903.patch trac4539_fix_docs_rel10903.patch
comment:109 Changed 9 years ago by
The patches look sane. I'll test them now (setting up 4.7.2alph3 will last some time).
comment:110 Changed 9 years ago by
FWIW, all tests pass for me (starting with the "official version" of sage-4.7.3.alpha3).
comment:111 follow-up: ↓ 112 Changed 9 years ago by
Can you just post the output of hg qapplied
? this would simplify things for me.
comment:112 in reply to: ↑ 111 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to AlexanderDreyer:
Can you just post the output of
hg qapplied
? this would simplify things for me.
Starting with sage-4.7.2.alpha3 (no prerelease this time):
$ hg qapplied trac_11339_refcount_singular_rings.patch trac_11339_refcount_singular_polynomials.patch trac_10903_singular-3-1-3-3.patch trac_10903_singular-fixes.patch trac11856_exponent_overflow.patch trac11856_fix_docs_32bit.patch trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch trac_11115_reviewer.patch trac11068_nc_ideals_and_quotients.patch trac11068_quotient_ring_without_names.patch trac11068_lifting_map.patch trac4539_libplural_rel10903.patch trac4539_pickling_rel10903.patch trac4539_normal_forms_rel10903.patch trac4539_fix_docs_rel10903.patch
comment:113 Changed 9 years ago by
Sorry, I had to produce a new version of the last patch: The first patch has introduced a wrong instance of the ..todo::
markup. The docbuilder complained about it. Since trac4539_fix_docs_rel10903.patch is responsible for fixing the doc strings, I fixed it there.
So, please replace the last patch with the new version, and also try to build the documentation (sage -docbuild reference html
).
comment:114 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
OMG. It seems that I managed to destroy the patch that I have just attached by a patch that I had prepared for #10903. Needs work, for now.
comment:115 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
I urgently need a break. It is unbelievable how many errors I made in the past 30 minutes.
Anyway.
I have now updated the patch (after first attaching a wrong file, followed by the correct file under a wrong name, and those things).
Note that there is now a new patch at #10903 - without that patch, building the documentation would fail.
The new version of trac4539_fix_docs_rel10903.patch fixes one wrongly formatted .. todo::
directive.
Please test whether the documentation builds fine for you.
Apply trac4539_libplural_rel10903.patch trac4539_pickling_rel10903.patch trac4539_normal_forms_rel10903.patch trac4539_fix_docs_rel10903.patch
comment:116 Changed 9 years ago by
Everything is fine, but one issue: Unfortunately the docbuild contains one uncaught exception (on SuSE 11):
sphinx-build -b html -d /p/sys/Sage/share/versions/sage-4.7.2.alpha3/devel/sage/doc/output/doctrees/en/reference /p/sys/Sage/share/versions/sage-4.7.2.alpha3/devel/sage/doc/en/reference /p/sys/Sage/share/versions/sage-4.7.2.alpha3/devel/sage/doc/output/html/en/reference Running Sphinx v1.0.4 loading pickled environment... done building [html]: targets for 152 source files that are out of date updating environment: 1 added, 152 changed, 0 removed reading sources... [ 99%] sage/symbolic/expression Exception occurred: File "/p/sys/Sage/share/versions/sage-4.7.2.alpha3/devel/sage/doc/common/conf.py", line 378, in skip_member if (hasattr(obj, '__name__') and obj.__name__.find('.') != -1 and AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'find' The full traceback has been saved in /tmp/sphinx-err-RJnoHz.log, if you want to report the issue to the developers. Please also report this if it was a user error, so that a better error message can be provided next time. Either send bugs to the mailing list at <http://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-dev/>, or report them in the tracker at <http://bitbucket.org/birkenfeld/sphinx/issues/>. Thanks! Build finished. The built documents can be found in /p/sys/Sage/share/versions/sage-4.7.2.alpha3/devel/sage/doc/output/html/en/reference
I suggested the reviewer patch: trac4539_docbuild_reviewer.patch
With that patch we are close to a positive review: I'm also running tests on OS X.
Changed 9 years ago by
comment:117 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Alexander,
Note that there is a new patch at #10903 (where the docbuild crash was introduced), and it fixes the problem in a more satisfying way. The problem was that under certain circumstances the name of a deprecated Cython method could not be determined - but with the new patch from #10903 (actually there are TWO new patches) the problem is fixed.
So, the docbuild reviewer patch is not needed.
comment:118 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Building, installing and testing succeeded on SuSE 11 Enterprise amd64 and OS X 10.5 ppc. So we can switch back to positive review.
comment:119 Changed 8 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.7.3 to sage-pending
comment:120 Changed 8 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #11068 #11316 #11856 #10903 to #11316, #11856, #10903, #9138, #11900, #11115, #11068
Changed 8 years ago by
comment:121 Changed 8 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #11316, #11856, #10903, #9138, #11900, #11115, #11068 to #11316, #11856, #10903, #9138, #11900, #11115, #11068, #11761
- Description modified (diff)
comment:122 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_info
It could be that we need some work here. The first patch does not apply when we start with sage-4.8.alpha0. Namely, in sage/libs/singular/function.pyx, it expects the line
ring2 = None
but this line has been removed. I don't know in which ticket that has happened. By consequence, a rather complicated chunk of the patch does not apply.
What shall we do? In order to avoid premature work, it would be an option to wait until finally all the dependencies got a positive review.
comment:123 follow-up: ↓ 124 Changed 8 years ago by
That line comes from http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/11761/11761-cython-0.15.patch (Cython is more strict here.) That patch was not merged in alpha0.
comment:124 in reply to: ↑ 123 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
Replying to AlexanderDreyer:
That line comes from http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/11761/11761-cython-0.15.patch (Cython is more strict here.)
Yes, now I see it: #11761 is a dependency! So, sorry for the noise, and back to a positive review - which needs two steps. One...
comment:126 Changed 8 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-pending to sage-5.0
comment:127 Changed 8 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.0.beta1
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
initial wrapper for plural