#8987 closed enhancement (fixed)
Add support for rational polyhedral fans
Reported by: | novoselt | Owned by: | mhampton |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-4.5.2 |
Component: | geometry | Keywords: | |
Cc: | vbraun, davidloeffler | Merged in: | sage-4.5.2.alpha0 |
Authors: | Andrey Novoseltsev | Reviewers: | Volker Braun |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
This patch is a part of the following series adding support for cones/fans and toric varieties to Sage:
Prerequisites:
#8675 - Remove AmbientSpace._constructor
and fix consequences
#8682 - Improve AlgebraicScheme_subscheme.__init__
and AmbientSpace._validate
#8694 - Improve schemes printing and LaTeXing
#8934 - Trivial bug in computing faces of non-full-dimensional lattice polytopes
#8936 - Expose facet inequalities for lattice polytopes
#8941 - _latex_
and origin
for lattice polytopes
Main patches adding new modules:
#9062 - Add support for toric lattices
#8986 - Add support for convex rational polyhedral cones
#8987 - Add support for rational polyhedral fans (this ticket now also has a bug fix #9188 as a prerequisite)
#8988 - Add support for toric varieties
#8989 - Add support for Fano toric varieties
Everything was tested on sage.math using sage-4.4.2.rc0.
Attachments (5)
Change History (59)
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Milestone set to sage-4.4.2
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by
- Cc vbraun added
- Description modified (diff)
New version of the patch using toric lattices from #9062. Switch of caching technique to allow efficient extension of class hierarchy is still pending.
comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by
Looks good so far. Adding the extra caching that was discussed on the mailinglist could be done later. Let me know when you want me to review the patches.
comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Hi Volker,
If you don't mind some delay of caching, then cones are ready for review.
In fans module I will add today or tomorrow derived classes EnhancedCone?(Cone_of_fan) and EnhancedFan?(RationalPolyhedralFan?), with the syntax discussed on sage-devel before. For now they will make efficient copies of existing fans and cones, later they will be smoothly transitions to shared caching. Since these classes will be on top of the existing framework, the rest is ready to review. In fact, I can make a separate patch adding them in a new ticket, rather than modifying again patches here. Marking everything as ready!!!
Thank you! Andrey
comment:6 Changed 11 years ago by
The second patch adds classes that will support cones and fans for domain and codomain of morphisms. While working on it, I moved the actual computation of the cone lattice to _compute_cone_lattice
. I have also added a comparison function to cones that ignores types if both arguments are cones. I think that cone1 == cone2
should NOT take into account if these cones belong to fans, morphisms, etc. If their rays are the same - they are equal.
comment:7 follow-up: ↓ 8 Changed 11 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Volker Braun
Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a reason why comparison of cones depends on the ray ordering?
sage: Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) == Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) True sage: Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) == Cone([(0,1), (1,0)]) False
It seems more natural to compare ray_set()
instead of rays()
.
comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a reason why comparison of cones depends on the ray ordering?
sage: Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) == Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) True sage: Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) == Cone([(0,1), (1,0)]) False
It seems more natural to compare
ray_set()
instead ofrays()
.
This is done like this:
sage: Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]).is_equivalent(Cone([(0,1), (1,0)])) True
One reason for such behaviour of ==
is simplicity of comparison, which probably should be fast for sorting purposes (and I was implementing only __cmp__
for all classes, not __eq__
). In the case of not strictly convex cones equality of ray sets is not necessary for equality of cones as sets of points (see the code of is_equivalent
for cones).
Another reason is consistency with the implementation of fans. For fans checking mathematical equality is a bit more tedious (although still can be done quickly using sorted lists for rays and cones, see is_equivalent
for fans), but the main reason is that I would prefer to be able to use plain integers to index divisors or charts. I was participating in the discussion how the equality of fans should be interpreted in Macaulay2, and in the documentation to one of the cohomology related functions there was a line about "canonical identification with ZZ^n
". Well, such identifications can be canonical only if the order of things is fixed.
Maybe these arguments are not very strong, but since there is a way to check equality in both senses, I think that it should be fine. The plan is also to have equivalence check relevant for toric varieties, i.e. up to GL(ZZ^n)
action, but is_isomorphic
functions throw NotImplementedError
so far.
Would you like me to add some comments on this behaviour to the "main" documentation of cone and fan modules? It is already described in is_equivalent
and is_isomorphic
docstrings, but perhaps deserves more visibility.
comment:9 follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 11 years ago by
1) I agree that we should test ==
without identifying GL(n,Z)
images as it is expensive. But I'm afraid of the following, which is probably a common use case:
sage: diamond = lattice_polytope.octahedron(2) sage: P1xP1 = FaceFan(diamond) sage: Cone([(0,1), (1,0)]) in P1xP1(dim=2) False sage: Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) in P1xP1(dim=2) True
Also, note that Fan()
is implicitly sorting:
sage: fan1 = Fan([Cone([(1,0), (0,1)])]) sage: fan2 = Fan([Cone([(0,1), (1,0)])]) sage: fan1==fan2 True
I would argue that is is ok to treat fans and cones a bit different, one will compare cones often but fans only seldomly. I'm happy with comparison of fans to depend on the order of the rays and generating cones, otherwise all derived quantities (like cohomology generators of toric varieties) will not be equal (only isomorphic). But for cone1==cone2
to depend on the order of the rays is neither helpful nor intuitive.
2) Fan()
should always error out if the cones are not generating cones. In particular, this one from the documentation
sage: cone1 = Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) sage: cone2 = Cone([(0,1), (-1,-1)]) sage: cone3 = Cone([(-1,-1), (1,0)]) sage: P2 = Fan([cone1, cone2, cone2]) sage: P2.ngenerating_cones() 2
should have raised an exception.
In normal use you'll never want to type in all the cones of the fan since there are so many. But its easy to get confused and add a cone that turns out to be not a generating cone, and its nice to catch this when generating the Fan
.
There is certainly a need for a function that extracts the generating cones from a collection of cones, but I don't think it should be implicit in the Fan constructor.
3) Rename Cone_of_fan.fan_generating_cones()
to star_generators()
.
There are similar methods to this one that we probably want to add later, so let me just throw out some names:
Cone_of_fan.faces()
: all subcones of the coneCone_of_fan.facets()
: subcones of one dimension lowerCone_of_fan.bounds()
: supercones of one dimension higherCone_of_fan.star()
: the star of the coneCone_of_fan.adjacent()
: Adjacent cones (of the same dimension)
4) Do we need to know the set of ray indices, that is set(cone.fan_rays())
, of a cone often? Right now there is the function cone_to_rays(cone_index)
that is only used as a helper in cone_lattice()
. If it is just a helper function, then it should be _cone_to_rays()
. If you want to expose that functionality, it should be stored in the Cone_of_fan
and retrieved via cone.fan_rays_set()
or so.
I also think that cone.rays_idx()
would be a better name than cone.fan_rays()
, but if you disagree then I can live with the current name as well :-)
5) similarly to 4), ray_to_cones()
is not very self-explanatory. We obviously need a way to find out which cones contain a given set of rays. I would prefer one (or all) of the following
ray_to_cone(ray_index)
: the 1-cone spanned by the raysmallest_cone_containing(*Nlist)
: the smallest cone containing all points (which can be specified by a ray index or as a N-lattice element).
The functionality of ray_to_cones
would then be provided by ray_to_cone(i).star_generators()
.
Let me know what you think...
comment:10 follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed 11 years ago by
I noticed that containing_cones(ray_indices)
does essentially what I wanted in 5) in my previous comment. However I think it would be much more useful if it would return the actual cone object and not a set of ray indices. Generally speaking, I think the user should never need the ray indices. And if he still needs them, then they can be gotten easily enough from the Cone_of_fan
object.
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; follow-ups: ↓ 13 ↓ 14 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Replying to vbraun:
1) I agree that we should test
==
without identifyingGL(n,Z)
images as it is expensive. But I'm afraid of the following, which is probably a common use case:
sage: diamond = lattice_polytope.octahedron(2) sage: P1xP1 = FaceFan(diamond) sage: Cone([(0,1), (1,0)]) in P1xP1(dim=2) False sage: Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) in P1xP1(dim=2) True
You got a point here, I don't like this behaviour...
Also, note that
Fan()
is implicitly sorting:
sage: fan1 = Fan([Cone([(1,0), (0,1)])]) sage: fan2 = Fan([Cone([(0,1), (1,0)])]) sage: fan1==fan2 True
There was no sorting, rays were determined first as a set (union of ray sets of all cones) and then converted to a tuple. I am not sure if the same set will always lead to the same tuple or it depends on something. I definitely don't want to force sorting - if a user gives rays in a specific order, then (s)he probably wants them in that order.
I would argue that is is ok to treat fans and cones a bit different, one will compare cones often but fans only seldomly. I'm happy with comparison of fans to depend on the order of the rays and generating cones, otherwise all derived quantities (like cohomology generators of toric varieties) will not be equal (only isomorphic). But for
cone1==cone2
to depend on the order of the rays is neither helpful nor intuitive.
In general, I agree, but it may potentially lead to cone1 == cone2
while Fan([cone1]) != Fan([cone2])
. Are you OK with this?
As I understand, it is not enough to just add __eq__
method to cones, since it will conflict wiht __cmp__
in the sense that it will be possible to have cone1 < cone2
and cone1 == cone2
at the same time, which is not cool. In fact, I do not see any good (and fast) way to compare cones in agreement with mathematical equivalence. It will require constructing Polyhedron
objects for each cone to check strict convexity and deal with possible non-uniqueness of ray generators, this will make it highly undesirable to sort sequences of cones. It will also make hashing of cones either slow or inconsistent with equality check (which is accepted in Sage, but should not be the case unless necessary).
Yeah... I think my position is: I will do this change if you still want it after arguments above, but I am very against it, especially since a method performing mathematical equality check is provided. A compromise is to add __contains__
and contains
to the Fan
class so that one can do
sage: diamond = lattice_polytope.octahedron(2) sage: P1xP1 = FaceFan(diamond) sage: Cone([(0,1), (1,0)]) in P1xP1 # no (dim=2) True sage: Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) in P1xP1 # no (dim=2) True
It would be also nice, perhaps, to be able to check points in such a way, i.e. if a point is in the support of a fan.
2)
Fan()
should always error out if the cones are not generating cones. In particular, this one from the documentationsage: cone1 = Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) sage: cone2 = Cone([(0,1), (-1,-1)]) sage: cone3 = Cone([(-1,-1), (1,0)]) sage: P2 = Fan([cone1, cone2, cone2]) sage: P2.ngenerating_cones() 2should have raised an exception.
In normal use you'll never want to type in all the cones of the fan since there are so many. But its easy to get confused and add a cone that turns out to be not a generating cone, and its nice to catch this when generating the
Fan
.There is certainly a need for a function that extracts the generating cones from a collection of cones, but I don't think it should be implicit in the Fan constructor.
My intention was to write a fan constructor that will construct a fan if at all possible. (Similarly, the cone constructor by default will discard non-generating rays.) One may, for example, start with some fan and add more cones to it. In this case some of the old generating cones may become unnecessary. Or, if cones of a fan come one by one from a certain procedure (e.g. in computing GKZ decomposition) and it is not known in advance how to easily select generating cones (e.g. all generating cones are full-dimensional for complete fans), it would be nice if the fan constructor could automatically select necessary cones. If you really against silent discard, we can perhaps either add a warning about a non-generating cone present, or a default parameter generating_cones=True
to Fan(...)
and then throw an exception if there are such cones. If one (like me ;-)) wants to discard them, it will be possible to use generating_cones=False
option.
3) Rename
Cone_of_fan.fan_generating_cones()
tostar_generators()
.
OK.
There are similar methods to this one that we probably want to add later, so let me just throw out some names:
Cone_of_fan.faces()
: all subcones of the coneCone_of_fan.facets()
: subcones of one dimension lower
Note that these are inherited from plain cones. However, they are likely to be ConeFace
objects and for fans it would make more sense to return other Cone_of_fan
ones...
Cone_of_fan.bounds()
: supercones of one dimension higher
I don't like the name. I guess it means that self
bounds those that are returned by this function. But it can also be interpreted as that it returns bounds of self
in the sense its facets. How about facet_of
for this one?
Cone_of_fan.star()
: the star of the cone
What exactly do you mean by star
here? Do you want to get back the fan in the quotient lattice? Anything else attached to it? I think we can use coercion system to define the canonical map from the lattice of the original fan to this one.
Cone_of_fan.adjacent()
: Adjacent cones (of the same dimension)
Is this name standard? I see that it may be convenient to have such a function, but I am not sure I would guess from the name what it does.
4) Do we need to know the set of ray indices, that is
set(cone.fan_rays())
, of a cone often? Right now there is the functioncone_to_rays(cone_index)
that is only used as a helper incone_lattice()
. If it is just a helper function, then it should be_cone_to_rays()
. If you want to expose that functionality, it should be stored in theCone_of_fan
and retrieved viacone.fan_rays_set()
or so.
I think it is just a helper and can go to _cone_to_rays
to clean up the namespace.
I also think that
cone.rays_idx()
would be a better name thancone.fan_rays()
, but if you disagree then I can live with the current name as well :-)
I disagree, because idx
is cryptic (indices?) and fan_rays
clearly tells one that it has something to do with the fan, even if it is not obvious that it will return indices rather than rays. (But what else can one expect? Rays themselves have no explicit relation to the fan.)
5) similarly to 4),
ray_to_cones()
is not very self-explanatory.
Agreed.
We obviously need a way to find out which cones contain a given set of rays. I would prefer one (or all) of the following
ray_to_cone(ray_index)
: the 1-cone spanned by the ray
I was tempted to say that
sage: fan(1)[i]
will do exactly this, but it will not since fan(1)
purposefully returns the list of rays, rather than one-dimensional cones... Did you notice this convention? What do you think of it?
Well, I think at least
sage: fan.cones(1)[i]
should do this work, even if it may fail to do so now because there is no particular sorting of 1-dimensional cones in the lattice. This actually seriously bugs me, since it was very annoying in LatticePolytope
until I fixed it. Fixing it for cones and fans was on my todo list for the future, but I guess the best time to do it is now. Assuming that this will be done, I propose to get rid of ray_to_cones
(or perhaps rename it to _ray_to_cones
) and do not add ray_to_cone
.
smallest_cone_containing(*Nlist)
: the smallest cone containing all points (which can be specified by a ray index or as a N-lattice element).
Can I remove smallest_
? I think since cone_containing
promises to return a single cone, it is quite reasonable to expect that it will be smallest (and of course it will be written in the documentation).
The functionality of
ray_to_cones
would then be provided byray_to_cone(i).star_generators()
.
Or, as I propose
fan.cones(1)[i].star_generators()
Let me know what you think now!
I am switching this ticket back to needs work. Regarding the last two tickets in the sequence - while I am working on this one, you can probably go ahead and review them too in the sense of comments. They will likely need some minor changes after updating this patch, but I currently don't plan to do anything else unless you request it.
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 10 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
Generally speaking, I think the user should never need the ray indices. And if he still needs them, then they can be gotten easily enough from the
Cone_of_fan
object.
Yes. I tried to make cones and fans better compared to LatticePolytopes
where everything is based on indices, but there is still room for improvement. Will work on it.
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to novoselt:
There was no sorting, rays were determined first as a set (union of ray sets of all cones) and then converted to a tuple.
I think the integer vectors get sorted lexicographically by their entries, and I think the rays inherit that. So the result should be deterministic :-)
In general, I agree, but it may potentially lead to
cone1 == cone2
whileFan([cone1]) != Fan([cone2])
. Are you OK with this?
I think that right now Fan( cone_list_1 ) == Fan( cone_list_2 )
as long as the cones are in the same order even if the order of the rays in each cone is different. I think that would be good enough :-). If somebody by hand specifies different orders of the rays of the fan then its only fair to treat the fans as different.
The "mathematical" comparison of the cones is only slow if they are not strictly convex, so I don't think that would be a big problem. Also, in the non-strict case one could work with facet normals which might be cached already... I'm not necessarily insisting that we do it that way, but just throwing out some options.
2) I think the warning would be the fine, too.
3) I only want to traverse the face lattice with those methods. By "star", I mean without quotient (in the triangulation sense, not how star is used for fans usually). I'm open to other names :) And adjacent works in the same way as "adjacency matrix", but I don't have a reference at hand right now that uses that.
I was tempted to say that
sage: fan(1)[i]will do exactly this, but it will not since
fan(1)
purposefully returns the list of rays, rather than one-dimensional cones... Did you notice this convention? What do you think of it?
Oww I didn't notice that... Can we have it return the 1-cones in the same order as the rays of the fan?
smallest_cone_containing(*Nlist)
: the smallest cone containing all points (which can be specified by a ray index or as a N-lattice element).Can I remove
smallest_
?
Fine by me!
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to novoselt:
sage: fan(1)[i]will do exactly this, but it will not since
fan(1)
purposefully returns the list of rays, rather than one-dimensional cones... Did you notice this convention? What do you think of it?
I've played a bit more with it and I don't understand your comment:
sage: fan = Fan(cones=[(0,1), (1,2)], rays=[(1,0), (0,1), (-1,0), (-1,-1)]) sage: fan(1) (1-dimensional cone, 1-dimensional cone, 1-dimensional cone) sage: fan(2) (2-dimensional cone, 2-dimensional cone) sage: type( fan(1)[0] ) <class 'sage.geometry.fan.Cone_of_fan'> sage: type( fan(2)[0] ) <class 'sage.geometry.fan.Cone_of_fan'>
So fan(1)
definitely returns the one-cones in the current incarnation...
comment:15 Changed 11 years ago by
Indeed! I guess, I was going to return plain rays but either forgot, or changed my mind and then forgot ;-) Anyway, in this case it is already working as it should. The order may be different from the order of rays, but I am working on it.
Can you also give a precise definition of adjacent cones of the same dimension? Should they be faces of a common cone of dimension one higher, or something else? Are there any subtle issues with non-complete fans?
comment:16 Changed 11 years ago by
Two faces of a polyhedron / cones of a fan are adjacent if all of the following holds:
- both have the same dimension k
- both contain a common (k-1)-face if k>0
- both are contained in a common (k+1)-face if k<dim
I don't think that there are any booby traps in that definition :-)
comment:17 Changed 11 years ago by
Thank you! In fact, with the current construction of lattices there is no need to worry about "if"s, since we have both top and bottom. One more technical question - should the returned list include self
? It seems to me that a face is adjacent to itself, but it may be more convenient not to have it in the list.
comment:18 Changed 11 years ago by
Yes, I agree: Two distinct faces of ...
comment:19 Changed 11 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
I posted a preliminary version towards addressing all the issues. So far I worked only on face order and a doctest for #9188.
For fans the last level of the cone_lattice is now inaccessible through cones()
method, because it is a fan and not a cone.
If the generating cones are of different dimensions, no attempt is made to sort the corresponding faces in any way since "perfect matching" is not possible anyway.
Middle dimensional faces are never sorted - it is not difficult to sort them, say, by generating rays, but I am not sure what can be a benefit of this. Let me know if you have a different opinion on this.
P.S. Sorting is sort of done twice - once is the Hasse diagram function and then in face_lattice/cone_lattice. The reason is that I thought that the first one will be enough and then didn't want to remove it since it seems to be nice too.
comment:20 Changed 11 years ago by
Here is a condensed version of proposed/pending changes since it is easy to get lost in the long posts above. I have modified some of the names, let me know if there are any objections. Below cone
is assumed to be Cone_of_fan
.
cone in fan
should check for equivalence of cones, i.e. the order of rays does not matterpoint in fan
should be possibleFan()
should give a warning if some of the given cones are compatible with others but are not generating
- Rename
cone.fan_rays
tocone.fan_ray_indices
- Rename
cone.fan_generating_cones
tocone.star_generator_indices
- Add
cone.adjacent
: adjacent cones (of the same dimension) - Add
cone.faces
: all subcones of the cone (override the superclass method to returnCone_of_fan
objects and allowdim/codim
options as in other cases) - Add
cone.facet_of
: supercones of one dimension higher - Add
cone.facets
: subcones of one dimension lower - Add
cone.star_generators
: return actual cone objects that generate the star - Do NOT add
cone.star
yet: I think such a function should return the fan of the star (with or without the quotient) - All these methods will ignore
fan
as the top element of thecone_lattice
. While I find it convenient to havefan
in the complete lattice for its construction, it does not really belong there.
- Remove
fan.cone_to_rays
- Remove
fan.ray_to_cones
- Do NOT add
fan.ray_to_cone(i)
, this is done asfan.cones(1)[i]
orfan(1)[i]
- Add
fan.cone_containing(rays/points)
: the smallest cone containing all points or rays
comment:21 Changed 11 years ago by
The work is going, however I am a bit concerned about face lattices of cones. As written above, for Cone_of_fan
objects it should consist of other Cone_of_fan
s, which know their position in the fan, but not really in the cone from which they were obtained. I think this makes perfect sense, will be convenient, fast, and compact in memory.
However for plain Cone
s faces are ConeFace
objects that know how they are related to the original cone. This means that if someone just has some cone
such that is_Cone(cone)==True
, the result of face_lattice
and its object is undetermined. Things are especially unpleasant for incomplete fans, since computing their cone_lattice
relies on computing face_lattice
s of generating cones...
What are your thoughts on this subject? A sort of simple solution is to hide computing faces of plain cones and only allow it for fans. (If one wants to get faces of a single cone - we can construct a fan from this cone and deal with its lattice...) Or we can just ignore it and hope that users know what they are doing ;-)
comment:22 Changed 11 years ago by
I'm not sure if I understand the problem; You think its confusing to have Cone.face_lattice()
and Fan.cone_lattice()
that do similar, but not quite the same, things? I think thats ok, one is for working with a single cone and the other is for working with fans. In particular, for toric geometry we are only interested in the cone lattice.
If you want to remove the ConeFace
then thats fine with me, and returning a fan for the Cone.face_lattice()
would make sense. There might be some issue with a circular dependency. But I don't think that its too confusing to have both, in particular since operations on fans will never return a ConeFace
and operations on a plain Cone
never return a fan.
comment:23 Changed 11 years ago by
I think it is confusing to have Cone.face_lattice()
and Cone_of_fan.face_lattice()
return lattices of ConeFace
and Cone_of_fan
objects respectively, which have different attributes. This will propagate to methods like Cone.facets()
and Cone_of_fan.facets()
.
But the more I think about it, the more I get convinced that Cone.face_lattice()
should construct a single-generating-cone fan and return the cone lattice of this fan, without the fan on the top (in the case of one cone this is still a lattice). It may require some thinking about names of functions that return things of the "ambient object" (like Cone_of_fan.fan_ray_indices()
) but it will give uniform behaviour, no duplicate code for similar functionality, and speed. Currenly, I think, if you ask for a face lattice of an element of a face lattice, a new lattice will be computed and constructed from scratch, but it can be just extracted as a part of the big initial lattice. Being able to get these sublattices quickly is essential, for example, for computing generating functions for stringy Hodge numbers. I will see if there are any problems with dependencies.
Sorry, it is taking longer than I expected, but the earlier such basic things will be fixed, the better will code on top of them behave...
comment:24 Changed 11 years ago by
OK, how about this:
- Get rid of
ConeFace
andCone_of_fan
classes. - Absolutely every
Cone
has a fan associated to it. If it was not given during construction, but is necessary for something, it will be constructed as a fan generated by a single cone (this should be very fast and memory efficient).
Fans will have three algorithms to compute cone lattices:
- Fast and independent of anything if we know that the fan is complete.
- Fast, once we get facet normals, if the fan is generated by a single cone.
- "Intermediate" fans will merge cone lattices of fans of their generating cones.
Cones will get their face lattices as sublattices of cone lattices of their fans.
I think this will give the most consistent behaviour of different flavours of cones, since there will be only one left. (Enhanced cones/fans will behave as before - adding whatever else is necessary to the existing structures.)
Let me know what you think...
comment:25 follow-up: ↓ 26 Changed 11 years ago by
Sounds good to me. Since we don't really need ConeFace
for toric varieties I'm happy to see it go. If anybody just wants to look at the geometry of a cone then he can use Polyhedron
.
comment:26 in reply to: ↑ 25 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
Sounds good to me. Since we don't really need
ConeFace
for toric varieties I'm happy to see it go. If anybody just wants to look at the geometry of a cone then he can usePolyhedron
.
Wonderful!
comment:27 Changed 11 years ago by
There is one problem: a non-strictly convex cone cannot be part of a fan. However, current version cannot compute the face lattice of such a cone anyway, so we don't loose anything and I will proceed as outlined above. Since most functions will be based on the result of face_lattice
, it will be relatively easy to add support for other cases later, if someone cares about them.
comment:28 Changed 11 years ago by
Yes, thats probably good. The non-uniqueness of the description of not necessarily strictly convex cones is painful....
I thought initially that we would this generality for the dual cones, but they a) don't form a fan and b) one usually shifts the dual cones around anyways, so their tip is not at the origin.
comment:29 Changed 11 years ago by
I'd rather not allow shifting away from the origin, for totally general things users should use Polyhedron
, which allows anything (except that it also does not yet compute face lattice of non-strictly convex cones ;-)), but is not efficient enough to be in the base of toric varieties. Although computing the "standard" dual cone certainly should be added in the near future. I never needed them for computations so far, but at least from the educational point of view they are important and that's why I tried not enforce strict convexity in the design. Anyway, "good" cones already create fans on their own ;-)
comment:30 Changed 11 years ago by
Hi Volker,
I have posted a new patch, it is still not a final version but I need approvals/opinions for some changes once again... After trying to make things work, I came to the conclusion that Cone_of_fan
is a natural class to introduce, but its added functionality should be minimal. On the other hand, there is no need for ConeFace
at all. So this class is gone but Cone_of_fan
is reincarnated.
It also feels natural to treat fans as cones in many respects and put some extra functions into IntegralRayCollection
class. In particular, I have added ambient
and ambient_ray_indices
there. For fans they will always return fan itself and range(fan.nrays())
. Should they be hidden as _ambient
etc.?
From the coding point of view it would be also convenient to refer to cones of fans as faces. On the other hand cones feel more natural. Choices: 1) refer to cones as faces; 2) refer to cones as faces, but also have aliases allowing to refer to them as cones; 3) refer to cones of fans as cones only. What would you choose?
I have changed _repr_
of cones so that they print "face of" if self.ambient() is not self
, i.e. if this cone represents a face of another cone or fan. In the previous version that's how ConeFace
was printed, but Cone_of_fan
was printed just as cone without mentioning the fan. I have kept the old style so far, but maybe it would be more consistent to print cones of fans as faces of these fans. This is somewhat related to the previous question. Your opinion?
Here is a sample of current code output (with an example of how cone of fan printing may look like):
sage: fan = FaceFan(lattice_polytope.octahedron(3)) sage: two_face = fan(2)[0] sage: two_face 2-dimensional cone sage: print super(type(two_face), two_face)._repr_() 2-dimensional face of Rational polyhedral fan in 3-dimensional lattice N sage: two_face.facets() (1-dimensional cone, 1-dimensional cone) sage: two_face.facet_of() (3-dimensional cone, 3-dimensional cone) sage: two_face.adjacent() (2-dimensional cone, 2-dimensional cone, 2-dimensional cone, 2-dimensional cone) sage: two_face.ambient() Rational polyhedral fan in 3-dimensional lattice N sage: two_face.ambient_ray_indices() (0, 1) sage: two_face.star_generators() (3-dimensional cone, 3-dimensional cone) sage: two_face.star_generator_indices() (0, 4) sage: fan.ambient() Rational polyhedral fan in 3-dimensional lattice N sage: fan.ambient_ray_indices() (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) sage: fan.cone_lattice() is fan.face_lattice() True
Not all new functions are yet documented, fan module has doctest failures related to containment checks (which are not yet fully implemented), and subsequent patches don't work with this version yet. Fully functional/documented/working_with_other_patches version is guaranteed by Friday evening.
Thank you! Andrey
comment:31 Changed 11 years ago by
- Summary changed from Add support for rational polyhedral fans to `
I agree that there is some rationale for calling individual cones to be faces of the fan, but that is not the standard terminology and I think it would be confusing. So I would go with 3)
- A cone is a strictly convex polyhedral cone
- Faces are sub-cones of cones
- A fan is a collection of cones, closed under "taking faces".
I think the rationale here is that (the support of) the fan is not necessarily convex, so its easier to keep fans and cones separate.
But i'm not opposed to keeping Fan.ambient()
to refer to either a cone or a fan (or anything that behaves suitable). To safely use duck-typing it would be nice to write down exactly what you expect ambient
to provide. I guess we want the following to be available, but not necessarily anything else:
ambient().nrays()
ambient().rays()
ambient().ray_set()
ambient().ray_indices()
comment:32 Changed 11 years ago by
- Summary changed from ` to Add support for rational polyhedral fans
Oops accidentally deleted the summary
comment:33 Changed 11 years ago by
OK, I also think that any cone in the fan must be called a cone. The only "face thing" that I would still like to keep is "face_lattice" since it allows the same code in Cone
work for a cone which is not a part of anything, a part or another cone, or a part of a fan.
(However, I can do it using a privite function or __getattr__
hook, if you think it would be better.)
Should cones of fan print as
2-dimensional cone of Rational polyhedral fan in 3-dimensional lattice N
? Right now the following is a bit inconsistent:
sage: cone = Cone([(1,0), (0,1)]) sage: for l in cone.face_lattice().level_sets(): print l ....: [0-dimensional face of 2-dimensional cone] [1-dimensional face of 2-dimensional cone, 1-dimensional face of 2-dimensional cone] [2-dimensional cone] sage: fan = Fan([cone]) sage: for l in fan.cone_lattice().level_sets(): print l ....: [0-dimensional cone] [1-dimensional cone, 1-dimensional cone] [2-dimensional cone] [Rational polyhedral fan in 2-dimensional lattice N] sage: cone_of_fan = fan(2)[0] sage: for l in cone_of_fan.face_lattice().level_sets(): print l ....: [0-dimensional cone] [1-dimensional cone, 1-dimensional cone] [2-dimensional cone]
So I think either all cones should just print as plain standalone cones, or they should always mention the ambient structure if it exists. For latexing I am using \subset
between self
and ambient
and think that it looks awesome ;-) For string representation I try to keep it short, but it is nice to see something distinguishing about objects.
I don't want to prohibit non-strictly convex cones completely, since I think that we definitely should have a function for computing dual cones.
So far I was thinking of ambient
as an ambient RayCollection
, i.e. we have a collection of rays that happened to be a subset of another ray collection. I do, however, want to put some face-related internal functions that will assume that self
is a face of ambient
and, therefore, face lattice of self
is a sublattice of face lattice of ambient
. The reason is that the main point of knowing that self
is a part of something bigger is to allow nice walking along the "largest containing face lattice." I didn't really think about it before, so I wrote only face_lattice
and faces
for cones and cone_lattice
and cones
for fans. But when you have suggested adding methods to cones that allow to go up/down/"horizontally" starting from the cone itself and without direct use of face/cone lattice of the containing object, I have realized that it will be extremely cool and convenient, and that behaviour of elements of face lattice for cones should be the same as for elements of cone lattice for fans. So I tried to make uniform methods instead of cone/fan
to access the ambient structure and cone_rays/fan_rays
to see how something sits inside it.
comment:34 Changed 11 years ago by
To minimize confusion I decided to use _face_lattice_function
to access the relevant lattice of ambient
. So faces will not be mentioned in fans in any way.
I am still unsure about fan.ambient()
method. It seems to be somewhat meaningless and perhaps even confusing. One can imagine working with subfans of a fan where this name can be natural, but my code is likely to break unless fan.ambient() is fan
. So perhaps it would be better to have _ambient
or something like this for ray collections and expose it as ambient
for cones, but not for fans. Maybe some other name is better than ambient
, but nothing comes to my mind. For cones the precise meaning of it is the dual analog of the origin. While the origin is the bottom of a face/cone lattice to which this particular cone belongs, the ambient
should be its top...
I will check actually, in what situations do I need to call fan.ambient()
, maybe all I need is that _face_lattice_function
.
comment:35 Changed 11 years ago by
Adjacent questions:
Ex1) Consider the fan of P1xP1 in the plane. Two 2-dimensional cones that share a ray are definitely adjacent.
Ex2) Consider the same fan embedded in 3-space. Are cones sharing a ray adjacent? It seems that they should be...
Ex3) Consider the fan in 3 space generated by all such cones in the coordinate planes (i.e. the fan of P1xP1xP1 without the 3-dimensional cones). Are cones sharing a ray adjacent? It is not so clear but maybe they should be... If they are, then cones have more adjacent cones in this fan then in the complete fan of P1xP1xP1. If not all of them are, how exactly one can determine which are "good" and "bad"?
My current code ignores dimension and looks at all faces y such that s < y < S where s is an immediate subface of the original face x and S is an immediate superface of x. Since all face-walking methods are implemented for cones, they will never be called for fans and s is always an honest facet of x. However, S can be a fan, in which case the difference between dimensions of x and S can be bigger than one.
Ex4) If a fan is generated by cones of different dimension, really weird things can happen. E.g. take the fan in 3-space generated by the first octant and the one-dimensional cone corresponding to (-1,-1,-1). What are adjacent faces of this ray? Current code will return not only all other rays, but also other faces of the octant. Adjacent rays of any of the rays of the octant will be other rays of the octant but not (-1,-1,-1).
I guess, possible actions are:
1) Leave things as is. They work great for cones, for complete fans, and, I think, for any fan generated by maximal dimensional cones.
2) Enforce dimension equality for adjacent faces. In Ex4 adjacent rays of (-1,-1,-1) will be all other rays. Adjacent rays of any other ray will not include this one.
3) Enforce dimension equality and require presence of a face of dimension d+1, unless d is already the dimension of the space. This is your original definition. In this case in Ex4 there are no rays adjacent to (-1,-1,-1). However, in Ex2 and Ex3 2-dimensional cones do not have adjacent ones.
4) Try to treat generating cones somehow special. I am not quite sure how exactly in the case when there are generating cones of different dimension.
Let me know what you think!
comment:36 Changed 11 years ago by
P.S. Unless you have some suggestions for 4), I prefer 3), since it is the strategy of "not returning bad, even if we miss something good" and it ensures transitivity of the "adjacent" relation. Any variant will work great for the most common case (at least for me) of complete fans.
comment:37 Changed 11 years ago by
Updated patch passes all existing doctests. adjacent
and facet_of
don't have them yet since the current behaviour is probably unacceptable, but at least it should be possible to play with them.
comment:38 Changed 11 years ago by
I'm also in favor of 3). The "holes" in the fan make faces non-adjacent, thats just how it works.
I don't want to prohibit non-strictly convex cones completely, since I think that we definitely should have a function for computing dual cones.
The dual cones can be returned as Polyhedron
objects, which is probably more useful since you'll most likely want to shift their origin and then intersect them.
comment:39 Changed 11 years ago by
OK, I have implemented 3) with the change "unless d
is the dimension of the ambient structure". This allows to work with embedded fans in an "intuitive" way. I think that changes to the cone module are finished, coverage is at 100% and all doctests pass. I will go over fan module tomorrow and see what else has to be documented/fixed there (so far doctests pass).
Regarding names: cone.ambient().dim()
and cone.ambient_dim()
are different things. The first is the actual dimension of the ambient cone or fan, while the second is the dimension of the ambient lattice. Are you OK with this or should we change it? In principle, the second one just returns cone.lattice().dim()
and it is not that much more to type, so cone.ambient_dim()
can be removed.
Regarding printing using _repr_
: I think we should have either all short version (only say what the object is)
sage: cone 2-dimensional cone sage: cone_face 1-dimensional cone sage: fan Rational polyhedral fan sage: fan_face 1-dimensional cone
or all long version (state the ambient structure and the lattice):
sage: cone 2-dimensional cone in 3-dimensional lattice N sage: cone_face 1-dimensional face of 2-dimensional cone in 3-dimensional lattice N sage: fan Rational polyhedral fan in 3-dimensional lattice N sage: fan_face 1-dimensional cone of Rational polyhedral fan in 3-dimensional lattice N
Right now we have something along these lines:
sage: cone 2-dimensional cone sage: cone_face 1-dimensional face of 2-dimensional cone sage: fan Rational polyhedral fan in 3-dimensional lattice N sage: fan_face 1-dimensional cone
I think I was trying to be informative but short, but I find the result inconsistent and would like to change it to one of the first two options (probably the second variant is the best, even if it is the longest...)
By the way - I intentionally didn't print the actual dimension of the fan since it seem to be less relevant than the ambient one: we can have a 2-d fan generated by 1-d cones in a 3-d space and from the toric varieties point of view the last dimension is the most important and clear one.
Let me know what you think!
comment:40 Changed 11 years ago by
I would be in favor of removing ambient_dim
. As you say, we'd then have
self.ambient().dim()
self.lattice().dim()
On a related note, the dimension of the toric variety is currently ToricVariety_field.dimension()
. Maybe we can shorten that to dim()
as well to be consistent?
For the output I also think that the verbose option is best. Maybe we can abbreviate the "Dimension", that would save space yet remain informative:
sage: cone 2d cone in 3d lattice N sage: cone_face 1d face of 2d cone in 3d lattice N sage: fan Rational polyhedral fan in 3d lattice N sage: fan_face 1d cone of Rational polyhedral fan in 3d lattice N
comment:41 Changed 11 years ago by
1) Can we remove Fan.containing_cones()
. It seems to be unused and its functionality is provided by the much more flexible method Fan.cone_containing()
.
2) The following raises an exception instead of returning the desired answer:
sage: F = Fan([[0,1,2,3],[0,1,4]], [(1, 1, 1), (1, -1, 1), (1, -1, -1), (1, 1, -1), (0, 0, 1)]) sage: F.cone_containing(0)
comment:42 Changed 11 years ago by
1) Yes, I thought about renaming it or making it hidden since containing_cones
and cone_containing
are so similar yet give quite different result. Thanks for pointing out that it is unused anymore at all. In fact, I have repeated its code in cone_containing
when I needed its functionality, so I guess it was not something extremely natural anyway. Will be gone.
2) There was a typo, will be fixed and your example goes into doctests!
I also like your suggestion for _repr_
strings, except that I would like to insert -
:
sage: cone_face 1-d face of 2-d cone in 3-d lattice N
I think it makes it a little easier to see the actual dimension and in the case of "1d" there is less confusion with "ld".
comment:43 Changed 11 years ago by
Well, it seems to me that it is done except for _repr_
changes which I plan to do tomorrow. Changes will be trivial, but involve a lot of doctest adjustment.
I have renamed ambient_dim
to lattice_dim
. That seemed to be very natural, in fact, I didn't even have to change the docstring "Return the dimension of the ambient lattice." The original proposal actually was not working because lattices don't have dim
, they have dimension
, and cone.lattice().dimension()
is a bit long, plus it does not show in <TAB>-completion. I prefer dim
to dimension
since it is clear enough, however it seems that many things in Sage stick with the long version. In particular, this is the case for ambient spaces (in the sense of schemes classes), so ToricVariety
inherits it. I think that actually both versions should exist, but the correct way to do it is to change ambient space class and that better be done in a separate ticket from adding a new module.
I have not switched equality of cones checked by ==
to ignore the order, although containment of cones in fans does not care about it. I agree that "mathematical equality" (which is currently available via is_equivalent
) may be better, although it would be inconsistent with fans, but I am afraid of performance penalty. I do not have currently any benchmarks to support my case and I may very well be wrong. So I propose to leave it as is for the moment and once it is actually possible to do things with toric varieties and we can check it on several "real projects" with big fans we can decide on the final behaviour. As I understand, switching from "computer" to "mathematical" equivalence should not break any well-written code, it may only allow to rewrite it in a more convenient way. On the contrary, if we switch now and later decide to go back it may lead to bugs in unexpected places.
comment:44 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
The last patch fixes printing. All doctests pass, coverage 100%. Ready for review, perhaps the final one!
I will now work on rebasing toric varieties modules on top of these.
comment:45 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
I think the patch(es) are in great shape now. Positive review!
comment:46 Changed 11 years ago by
Thank you!
For the release manager: apply all patches in the order listed in the ticket.
Changed 11 years ago by
comment:47 Changed 11 years ago by
- Cc davidloeffler added
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
I made a systematic mistake in doctests of cmp methods of all patches, discovered in #9062. So now I am posting these one-line patches to fix them, please review!
comment:48 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:50 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
This patch won't apply without #8986, which is currently at "needs work", so it can't be merged at present.
comment:51 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:52 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:53 Changed 11 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.5.2.alpha0
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
I will make some adjustments to this module following discussion here: http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/17743e17d67838ae