Opened 11 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#9220 closed defect (fixed)
Unpredictable parent for polynomial evaluation
Reported by: | nbruin | Owned by: | robertwb |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.7 |
Component: | coercion | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Merged in: | sage-5.7.beta3 | |
Authors: | Nils Bruin, Robert Bradshaw | Reviewers: | Tom Boothby |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
I doubt that it is intended that the names of the variables of a polynomial ring can affect the parent of the result of evaluating such a polynomial:
sage: R=QQ['x'] sage: S=QQ['x','y'] sage: h=S.0^2 sage: parent(h(R.0,0)) Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y over Rational Field sage: R=QQ['x'] sage: S=QQ['u','v'] sage: h=S.0^2 sage: parent(h(R.0,0)) Univariate Polynomial Ring in x over Rational Field
I would expect the result of the second example in both cases.
In
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/4607f62126303ddd?pli=1
John Cremona mentions #8502 as fixing a different but similar issue.
Apply:
9220-poly-evaluation-coerce-5.4.rebase.patch trac_9220-poly_evaluation-review-ts.patch
Attachments (4)
Change History (21)
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by
comment:2 follow-up: ↓ 3 Changed 11 years ago by
I think I've found the culprit in:
built-in method __call__ of sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_libsingular.MPolynomial_libsingular
Indeed, it tries to coerce the evaluation values into the polynomial ring. Perhaps it should try to coerce into the base ring of the parent instead?
if l != parent._ring.N: raise TypeError, "number of arguments does not match number of variables in parent" try: x = [parent._coerce_c(e) for e in x] except TypeError: # give up, evaluate functional y = parent.base_ring()(0) for (m,c) in self.dict().iteritems(): y += c*mul([ x[i]**m[i] for i in m.nonzero_positions()]) return y
If I were to fix this code, I'd simply always do the code under the "except", but someone probably had a good reason for doing it the way it's done. Probably because singular_polynomial_call
is more efficient? I see several options:
- Ask the coercion system for a common overring of the base ring of parent and all the parents of x. If that is parent, then coerce and use singular_polynomial_call. Otherwise just multiply out manually.
- see if the parent of all members of x is equal to parent (due to the lax coercion rules, *coercible into* isn't good enough)
- just always evaluate by multiplying out
The first one is the "proper" one in that it uses the coercion system to figure out if a more efficient option is available. The second option should be cheap and catch the case where most speed-up should be attainable. The third option wouldn't waste any time on checking parents, but would need coercion calls for each coefficient-monomial multiplication.
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 11 years ago by
Indeed the present code does seem to address real overhead:
sage: R=QQ['x'] sage: S=QQ['x','y'] sage: h=S.0^2 sage: timeit('h(R.0,0)') 625 loops, best of 3: 269 µs per loop
but
sage: R=QQ['x'] sage: S=QQ['u','v'] sage: h=S.0^2 sage: timeit('h(R.0,0)') 625 loops, best of 3: 523 µs per loop
so option one or two above is probably the proper one.
comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by
Attached patch is efficient when evaluation point has the same parent. I guess previously some efficiency was gained when a point was in the base ring as well (the result was subsequently recognised as a constant and coerced back?) by used libsingular evaluation directly. This is lost with attached patch. This probably means that this patch solves #8502 independently as well.
To reviewer or merger: feel free to change patch. I won't be touching the code anymore.
comment:6 Changed 11 years ago by
I've attached a patch that returns the correct parent without sacrificing the singular efficiency (together with a utility method in the coercion model to make this kind of thing easier elsewhere).
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by
Apply only 9220-poly-evaluation-coerce.patch
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Works with 4.7.1.
comment:9 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers set to boothby
comment:10 Changed 9 years ago by
- Summary changed from Upredictable parent for polynomial evaluation to Unpredictable parent for polynomial evaluation
comment:11 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from boothby to Tom Boothby
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Needs to be rebased to sage-5.0.beta11:
applying 9220-poly-evaluation-coerce.patch patching file sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_libsingular.pyx Hunk #2 succeeded at 4512 with fuzz 2 (offset 2764 lines). Hunk #4 FAILED at 1785 1 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_libsingular.pyx.rej patch failed, unable to continue (try -v) patch failed, rejects left in working dir errors during apply, please fix and refresh 9220-poly-evaluation-coerce.patch
comment:12 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:13 Changed 8 years ago by
Some docstring things:
- Please use auto-trac linking
:trac:`9220`
- For
common_parent()
, I would recommend:Computes a common parent for all the inputs. This is essentially an `n`-ary canonical coercion except it can operate on parents rather than just elements. INPUT: - ``args`` -- a set of elements and/or parents OUTPUT: A :class:`Parent` into which each input should coerce, or raises a ``TypeError`` if no such :class:`Parent` can be found.
In particular, there is should not be an indent on theINPUT:
andOUTPUT:
blocks.
Thanks,
Travis
comment:14 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to docstrings
comment:15 Changed 8 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:16 Changed 8 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
- Work issues docstrings deleted
The rebased version worked for me. I've attached a small reviewer patch which just does the minor tweaks to the docstrings. Jeroen, I hope you don't mind me setting this back to a positive review.
Best,
Travis
For patchbot:
Apply only: 9220-poly-evaluation-coerce-5.4.rebase.patch, trac_9220-poly_evaluation-review-ts.patch
comment:17 Changed 8 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.7.beta3
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
I agree, the result should only be a function of the base ring and evaluation argument parents.