Opened 11 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

#7271 closed defect (fixed)

some small polybori interface fixes

Reported by: malb Owned by: malb
Priority: minor Milestone: sage-4.3.1
Component: commutative algebra Keywords: polybori, crypto
Cc: burcin, PolyBoRi, drkirkby Merged in: sage-4.3.1.alpha0
Authors: Martin Albrecht Reviewers: Mike Hansen
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by malb)

  • implement var()
  • implemented new functions required by PolyBoRi?
  • fixed a few things in MPolynomialSystem

Attachments (2)

polybori_fixes.patch (13.6 KB) - added by malb 11 years ago.
deps (12.1 KB) - added by malb 11 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (18)

comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by malb

  • Status changed from new to needs_review

comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by mhansen

Why does variables() return an iterator? It returns a tuple for pretty much everything else in Sage. See #7077

comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by malb

Because that's what PolyBoRi? expects internally.

comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by mhansen

Can you explain in a bit more detail? How is PolyBoRi? using that method?

comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by malb

Hi Mike, sorry for being so brief earlier, I was in a rush.

PolyBoRi? calls this function from various functions which are called by the groebner_basis function. The ones I could find quickly are:

polybori-0.6/pyroot/polybori/rank.py:    return p.lex_lead().variables().next()
polybori-0.6/pyroot/polybori/ll.py:      return Monomial(v).variables().next().index()
polybori-0.6/testsuite/py/parsegat.py:    return p.lead().variables().next()

As you can see, it calls next() immediatly on the result of variables(). Right now, certain GB computations will fail with an AttributeError because of this.

comment:6 Changed 11 years ago by malb

I just received word that this will be changed in PolyBoRi?.

comment:7 Changed 11 years ago by PolyBoRi

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

http://bitbucket.org/brickenstein/polybori/changeset/48fab65072e9/

http://bitbucket.org/brickenstein/polybori/changeset/e238ae62b9e6/

Regarding parsegat, as you can see, I moved a corrected version between our repositories (similar one-liner). But there is no dependency on parsegat.py . The only funny thing about the recent versions of parsegat.py is that, you can see a poor mathetician trying to recognize patterns from bad encoded circuits. I still have nightmares from it.

comment:8 Changed 11 years ago by malb

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

I prepared a new SPKG and a new patch.

The SPKG is available at:

http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/malb/spkgs/polybori-0.6.3.r1647-20091028.spkg

Changed 11 years ago by malb

comment:9 Changed 11 years ago by malb

Mike, I reversed the iterator change in the latest patch. Can you review it?

comment:10 Changed 11 years ago by malb

I am attaching a new deps file to this ticket, to address

http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/122f067d8947148d/

Changed 11 years ago by malb

comment:11 Changed 11 years ago by malb

The only thing changed in the deps file (which isn't under revision control) is that PolyBoRi? now depends on M4RI

comment:12 Changed 11 years ago by drkirkby

  • Cc drkirkby added

There are several issues I am aware of with m4ri, which should perhaps be sorted out before code is added that depends on it.

#7171 - Although reported against HP-UX, this is more serious, as it is broken on Solaris too. #7037 - libm4ri thinks the C compiler is broken

I beleive the current version of PolyBoRi? might actually build with Sun's compiler, but this would stop that, if it has a dependancy which does not.

comment:13 Changed 11 years ago by drkirkby

Oops, for some reason I was not aware of this ticket despite being CCed on it. Nor of #7375, which aims to address the issues in M4RI, so my comments are probably out of place. I will look at #7375 soon, but would be unable to review this ticket.

Dave

comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by malb

  • Report Upstream set to N/A

Hi, I was wondering if I someone could review this ticket now that the M4RI issues are resolved?

comment:15 Changed 10 years ago by mhansen

  • Reviewers set to Mike Hansen
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

The patch looks good. I'll add it first thing after 4.3, which should hopefully be out in the next day or two.

comment:16 Changed 10 years ago by mhansen

  • Merged in set to sage-4.3.1.alpha0
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.