Opened 10 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

# Implement Hilbert symbols over number fields

Reported by: Owned by: aly.deines davidloeffler major sage-4.8 number fields hilbert symbol mstreng, jdemeyer sage-4.8.alpha1 Aly Deines, Marco Streng, Jeroen Demeyer David Loeffler, John Cremona, Marco Streng, Jeroen Demeyer Fixed upstream, in a later stable release. #11304, #11540, #11130

PARI has Hilbert symbols for number fields. Hilbert symbols can be implemented by wrapping PARI's function nfhilbert.

### comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by aly.deines

• Status changed from new to needs_work

Here all the functions are better placed. I still need to fix the code so that generalized_hilbert_symbol(a,b,P) doesn't assume a.valuation(P) and b.valuation(P) are 0 or 1.

### comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by aly.deines

• Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

I changed the code as Tim (correctly) suggested so as it doesn't assume reduced input.

### comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by aly.deines

This has better uniformizer code.

### comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by davidloeffler

• Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
• Work issues set to patch does not apply

This doesn't seem to apply to 4.4.4. Does it require some other patch as a prerequisite? Also, the docstrings don't seem to be correctly ReST formatted (you should always run sage -docbuild reference html and check that there are no warnings before submitting a patch).

### comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by davidloeffler

• Work issues changed from patch does not apply to ReST formatting issues

I see. So it's supposed to be applied on top of the patches at #9317. That's fine, but you should explain this in your trac upload messages. Don't repost random patches from other tickets on this ticket -- that's just unnecessary duplication, and it's confusing for the release maintainer when s/he has to merge stuff later.

Anyway: with the #9317 patches in place these four patches apply fine, and all doctests pass. But they're quite hard to review, since you seem to have added code in one place in the first patch and then removed it and added it again somewhere else in the second. Could I suggest that you use the Mercurial "qfold" command to combine the four patches into one single patch? That would make the reviewer's job vastly easier. And don't forget those docstring formatting problems; the two that stand out most at a quick glance are that the LaTeX formulae should be in backticks not dollar signs (x^2 + 2 etc), and the LaTeX fraction command is \frac not \frak.

### comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by aly.deines

Here is one single patch. It does not depend on ticket #9317. This should have all the documentation fixed. Thank you for your patience, I've learned a lot about Mercurial and ReST formatting recently.

I also applied this on a clean clone of 4.4.2 to check that it would build, all the doctest pass, and the -docbuild looks correct.

### comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by davidloeffler

Most of this looks fine, and the docstring formatting is much better; but there are some technical issues.

• The code in  solver_mod_p  is obviously wrong for n > 1: it calculates the inverse modulo Pn but then takes the square root of this modulo P. You need some kind of Hensel lifting or suchlike to get an answer that's right modulo Pn.
• The code in  uniformizer  is a mess (e.g. it trivially fails for any non-principal ideal in a number field of degree > 2, because you've assumed  self.integral_basis() has length 2). But there's already a method  sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic.uniformizer  (taking a prime as an argument). I agree that it is worth having uniformizers accessible via a method of ideals as well, but it should just be a thin wrapper around the existing code.

### comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by cremona

• Milestone changed from sage-wishlist to sage-5.0
• Reviewers set to David Loeffler, John Cremona
• Work issues changed from ReST formatting issues to ReST formatting issues, and more

I generally agree with David's points. This code will be very useful for a topic begin done at SD23 (solving conics over various fields) so I am keen to get this in (suitably modified).

In generalized_legendre_symbol: (1) test P for primality first, before trying to construct its residue field. (2) instead of K(2).valuation(P) just test that n is odd. (3) don't raise run-time errors, make them ValueErrors??. (4) make the return types consistent: you return either +1 in k or -1 as a python int. I would return a Sage integer in either case. (5) you do not test if P divides self. If so, return 0 (as a Sage integer)>

Why are generalized_hilbert_symbol and _legendre_symbol in sage/rings/arith.py? I would put them both in number_fields -- where you put the even one in fact.

In generalized_even_hilbert_symbol you define but do not use iprime, so delete it. And do the simple calculation to get the coefficients of jprime2 so you don't need to construct the quaternion algebra. (You can leave in a comment about that).

_voight_alg_6_2 has some symbols which should be . Check for others.

Do what David said about uniformizer -- just call the existing function.

Sort out the solve function.

### comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by mstreng

Great, I could use this.

While you are still at it, I have a small wish list as well. Could you

• Let the generalized even Hilbert symbol accept fractions (as the odd one and the QQ one do)?
sage: hilbert_symbol(1/3, 1, 2)
1
sage: O = K.maximal_order()
sage: generalized_hilbert_symbol(K(1/2), K(1), 3*O)
1
sage: generalized_hilbert_symbol(K(1/3), K(1), (1+i)*O)
NotImplementedError: inverse_mod is not implemented for non-integral elements

• Also add the Hilbert symbol for infinite places? See e.g.
sage: hilbert_symbol(-1, -1, -1)
-1

This is almost trivial compared to what you've already done. I have code, contact me if you have questions.
• Correct the doc text. The doc of generalized_even_hilbert_symbol should say that P must divide 2, while generalized_hilbert_symbol should not say that P must be odd

### comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by mstreng

In addition to the first part of my precious comment: generalized_even_hilbert_symbol should accept a and b to both be divisible by p.

sage: hilbert_symbol(2,2,2)
1
sage: O=K.maximal_order()
sage: generalized_hilbert_symbol(3,3,3*O)
1
sage: generalized_hilbert_symbol(2,2,2*O)
ValueError: P must be a prime


### comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by mstreng

Oops, the last two lines of my previous comment should of course read

sage: p = 1+i
sage: generalized_hilbert_symbol(p,p,p*O)
RuntimeError: ord_P(a) or ord_P(b) must be zero


### comment:12 Changed 10 years ago by mstreng

• Priority changed from minor to major

### comment:13 Changed 10 years ago by cremona

• Description modified (diff)
• Summary changed from hilbert symbols!!! to Implement Hilbert symbols over number fields

Alyson, are you intending to fix the various points raised by reviewers here? If not, someone else should. Ticket #9320 is waiting on this one.

### comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by aly.deines

Here are the changes I've made so far:

1. in generalized_legendred_symbol I test for primality first
2. instead of K(2).valuation(P) I just test that n is odd
3. I've changed RunTime? Errors to ValueErrors?
4. I return +/- 1 as sage integers
5. I test if P|self and if so return 0 (as a sage integer)
6. in generalized_hilbert_symbol I deleted iprime
7. I did the calculation and have hard coded jprime2
8. I've replace with where necessary in _voight_alg_6_2
9. Things should work for fractions
10. generalized_hilbert_symbol should also accept a,b, divisible by p

One question I have, does anyone know about hensel lifting in sage?

### comment:15 Changed 10 years ago by cremona

Excellent -- should it be "needs review" again then?

There must be places in Sage where Hensel lifting is done, but I do not know of any general framework for it. You could try asking David Roe, who (I think) wrote a lot of the p-adic code.

### comment:16 Changed 10 years ago by aly.deines

No, it shouldn't be "needs review" yet. I still need to fix solver_mod_p.

### comment:17 Changed 10 years ago by aly.deines

• Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

I have fixed solver_mod so that it computes the square root mod Pn.

### comment:18 Changed 10 years ago by aly.deines

Fixes/added documentation. Has the examples above in the documentation.

### comment:19 Changed 10 years ago by rlm

• Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

Based on 4.5.3.alpha1:

sage -t  sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py
**********************************************************************
File "/home/rlmill/sage-4.5.3.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1212:
sage: P.uniformizer()
Expected:
a + 4
Got:
-2*a + 1
**********************************************************************
File "/home/rlmill/sage-4.5.3.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1219:
sage: P.uniformizer()
Expected:
-7*a^4 + 13*a^3 - 13*a^2 - 2*a + 50
Got:
a^4 - a^3 + a^2 - a + 1
**********************************************************************


### Changed 10 years ago by aly.deines

Fixes some documentation.

### comment:20 Changed 10 years ago by aly.deines

• Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

Ok, I checked at P.uniformizer() is just wrapping K.uniformizer(P). So assuming K.uniformizer(P) is correct (which it appears to be), I've fixed the documentation for P.uniformizer().

### comment:21 Changed 10 years ago by mstreng

• Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

• why aren't generalized_hilbert_symbol and generalized_even_hilbert_symbol in the same file? (e.g. both in number_field as John suggested)
• the documentation of generalized_hilbert_symbol says that the prime should be odd, which isn't necessary, in fact, it would be good to have an even example in the doctest so this functionality doesn't get broken
• the documentation of generalized_even_hilbert_symbol doesn't say that the prime must be even, which it should!

Also, generalized_even_hilbert_symbol is less powerful than the general one:

sage: K.<i> = QuadraticField(-1)
sage: O = K.maximal_order()
sage: generalized_hilbert_symbol(K(1/3), K(1), (1+i)*O)
1
sage: generalized_even_hilbert_symbol(K(1/3), K(1), (1+i)*O)
...
NotImplementedError: inverse_mod is not implemented for non-integral elements


So I guess the documentation of generalized_even_hilbert_symbol should say that the input should consist of integral elements? Possibly the documentation of generalized_even_hilbert_symbol could say that this is simply an auxiliary function and the user should call generalized_hilbert_symbol instead?

needs_work because of the documentation issues for generalized_even_hilbert_symbol

### comment:22 Changed 10 years ago by mstreng

• Reviewers changed from David Loeffler, John Cremona to David Loeffler, John Cremona, Marco Streng

here's a non-documentation reason for needs_work:

sage: K.<i> = QuadraticField(-1)
sage: O = K.maximal_order()
sage: generalized_hilbert_symbol(K(-1/3), K(-2/3), (1+i)*O)
...
ValueError: self is not a square root mod P^n


### comment:23 Changed 10 years ago by mstreng

And here's another one. In Magma, I get:

> L := QuadraticField(5);
> O := MaximalOrder(L);
> HilbertSymbol(L!-3, L!-2, 2*O);
1 1/2 + 1/2*i j


In pari, I get:

? k = nfinit(x^2-5)
...
? nfhilbert(k, -3, -2, idealprimedec(k, 2)[1])
%2 = 1


But the patch gives:

sage: L.<a> = QuadraticField(5)
sage: generalized_hilbert_symbol(L(-3), L(-2), 2*O)
-1


Something is wrong...

### comment:24 Changed 10 years ago by cremona

In fact, what are the reasons for implementing this independently rather than using pari's function?

### Changed 10 years ago by mstreng

interface to pari's nfhilbert, apply only this file

### comment:25 Changed 10 years ago by mstreng

• Authors changed from aly.deines to Aly Deines, Marco Streng
• Description modified (diff)
• Work issues changed from ReST formatting issues, and more to bug in Pari 2.4.3

All that needed to be done was wrap pari's nfhilbert function and copy Aly's doctests, but...

One of those doctests revealed yet another bug introduced by the pari upgrade. See http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1147

Apply trac_9334_nfhilbert.patch once pari bug 1147 is fixed and that fix reaches Sage.

Possible future improvements:

• implement also for relative number fields by simply delegating to the absolute case
• implement also for QQ by wrapping the global function hilbert_symbol as a member of QQ

### comment:26 Changed 10 years ago by davidloeffler

• Report Upstream changed from N/A to Reported upstream. Little or no feedback.

### comment:27 Changed 10 years ago by jdemeyer

• Report Upstream changed from Reported upstream. Little or no feedback. to Reported upstream. Developers acknowledge bug.

### comment:28 Changed 10 years ago by mstreng

• Work issues changed from bug in Pari 2.4.3 to either wait for Pari bug 1147 to be fixed, or finish Aly Deines' independent Sage implementation

### comment:29 follow-up: ↓ 30 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

• Report Upstream changed from Reported upstream. Developers acknowledge bug. to Fixed upstream, but not in a stable release.
• Work issues changed from either wait for Pari bug 1147 to be fixed, or finish Aly Deines' independent Sage implementation to update pari in sage, and make sure all doctests in this patch are correct (or finish Aly Deines' independent implementation)

The pari bug resulting in incorrect outputs of nfhilbert was fixed in Pari svn revision 13063 2011-04-05 14:03:38 +0100 (Tue, 05 Apr 2011).

How do we get this fix into Sage?

### comment:30 in reply to: ↑ 29 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

The pari bug resulting in incorrect outputs of nfhilbert was fixed in Pari svn revision 13063 2011-04-05 14:03:38 +0100 (Tue, 05 Apr 2011).

How do we get this fix into Sage?

I am currently maintaining the PARI spkg for Sage, so asking me is the best way.

See #11130.

### comment:32 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

• Dependencies set to #11304, #11540, #11130
• Description modified (diff)
• Report Upstream changed from Fixed upstream, but not in a stable release. to Fixed upstream, in a later stable release.
• Work issues changed from update pari in sage, and make sure all doctests in this patch are correct (or finish Aly Deines' independent implementation) to make sure all doctests in this patch are correct (or finish Aly Deines' independent implementation)

### comment:33 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

• Description modified (diff)
• Work issues changed from make sure all doctests in this patch are correct (or finish Aly Deines' independent implementation) to correct the doctests

apply trac_9334_nfhilbert.patch

### comment:34 Changed 9 years ago by cremona

• Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

Patch applies fine to 4.7.2.alpha2 + #11130; testing now. Meanwhile, just a small point -- in the docstring it says that P must be a prime ideal of self, but it can also be (1) an element of self which generates a prime ideal, or (2) a real or complex place of self. This is well illustrated in the examples, but it should also be stated in the INPUT block.

Any chance you could change the docstring while I am doing the testing?

### comment:35 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

• Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

Some doctests disagree with Magma, so I hope they will fail!

### comment:36 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

• Work issues changed from correct the doctests to correct the doctests, change the INPUT in the documentation

According to Magma V2.17-9, the following changes make the doctests correct:

replace

sage: K.hilbert_symbol(p,p,p*O)
-1


by

sage: K.hilbert_symbol(p,p,p)
1
sage: K.hilbert_symbol(p,3*p,p)
-1
sage: K.hilbert_symbol(3,p,p)
-1


remove duplicate

sage: K.hilbert_symbol(a,b,P)
-1


and for the remaining one, replace -1 by 1

replace -1 by 1 in

sage: K.hilbert_symbol(a, 2, P)
-1


Then the "various other examples" contain a lot of uninteresting 1s, of which we can remove a few.

### comment:37 Changed 9 years ago by cremona

Testing on 4.7.2.alpha2+#11130 I get these failures:

sage -t -long "devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py"
**********************************************************************
File "/home/jec/sage-4.7.2.alpha2.11130/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 6737:
sage: K.hilbert_symbol(p,p,p*O)
Expected:
-1
Got:
1
**********************************************************************
File "/home/jec/sage-4.7.2.alpha2.11130/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 6763:
sage: K.hilbert_symbol(a,b,P)
Expected:
-1
Got:
1
**********************************************************************
File "/home/jec/sage-4.7.2.alpha2.11130/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 6770:
sage: K.hilbert_symbol(a, b, P)
Expected:
-1
Got:
1
**********************************************************************
File "/home/jec/sage-4.7.2.alpha2.11130/devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 6772:
sage: K.hilbert_symbol(a, 2, P)
Expected:
-1
Got:
1
**********************************************************************


### comment:38 follow-up: ↓ 40 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

sage: K.<t> = NumberField(x^3 - x + 1)
sage: K.pari_nf().nfhilbert(t,t+1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RuntimeError                              Traceback (most recent call last)

/usr/local/src/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/<ipython console> in <module>()

/usr/local/src/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/libs/pari/gen.so in sage.libs.pari.gen.gen.nfhilbert (sage/libs/pari/gen.c:29966)()

RuntimeError: Segmentation fault


I can't immediately figure out the cause, it is probably a bug somewhere in PARI or the Sage-PARI interface,

### comment:39 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

The Segmentation Fault is probably #11854.

### comment:40 in reply to: ↑ 38 ; follow-up: ↓ 41 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

• Work issues changed from correct the doctests, change the INPUT in the documentation to correct the doctests, change the INPUT in the documentation, fix problems with global hilbert symbols, check out seemingly unrelated doctest failures in other files

This is about global Hilbert symbols, while all the doctests are about local ones. Thanks for noticing.

Do you want to close this ticket at the same time as #11130? If not, then I'll wait until I can download a version with #11130 included, and then try to fix the problems here.

### comment:41 in reply to: ↑ 40 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

Do you want to close this ticket at the same time as #11130?

I don't think there is any reason to do so. I will leave it up to you to decide what to do. For now, I will continue investigating the Segmentation Fault issue.

### comment:42 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

Unfortunately, #11854 does not fix the Segmentation Fault.

### comment:43 follow-up: ↓ 44 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

The Segmentation Fault actually shows a major design problem with the Sage->PARI interface (essentially, the t0GEN system is broken by design).

As for this ticket, as far as I'm concerned you may ignore this. It has essentially nothing to do with this ticket and (hopefully) it can only be reproduced by directly calling PARI (i.e. doing K.pari_nf().nfhilbert(t,t+1) instead of K.hilbert_symbol(t,t+1).)

### comment:44 in reply to: ↑ 43 ; follow-up: ↓ 45 Changed 9 years ago by cremona

The Segmentation Fault actually shows a major design problem with the Sage->PARI interface (essentially, the t0GEN system is broken by design).

So there should be a new ticket made which explains this major design problem, so that it is on our todo-list at least.

### comment:45 in reply to: ↑ 44 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

So there should be a new ticket made which explains this major design problem, so that it is on our todo-list at least.

See #11868.

### comment:46 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

• Description modified (diff)
• Work issues changed from correct the doctests, change the INPUT in the documentation, fix problems with global hilbert symbols, check out seemingly unrelated doctest failures in other files to fix problems/add doctests with global hilbert symbols, check out seemingly unrelated doctest failures in other files

### comment:47 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

• Reviewers changed from David Loeffler, John Cremona, Marco Streng to David Loeffler, John Cremona, Marco Streng, Jeroen Demeyer

### comment:48 Changed 9 years ago by davidloeffler

• Description modified (diff)

I presume you didn't mean to apply two copies of the same patch! Is this ready for review again now?

### comment:49 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

I'm going to make some further changes.

### comment:50 follow-ups: ↓ 51 ↓ 52 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

Is this ready for review again now?

There is still a duplicate example, and a lot of examples that return 1 now that they are corrected. I think we should remove some of these, and add some -1's such as the ones in my comment 2 days ago.

Also, what is the output type now? In my patch, I converted it to Integer. Jeroen removed that conversion, but what does cdef long give us?

Finally, in my patch, I had self(a), but Jeroen turned this into a. How carefully does Pari check whether stuff is in the right field?

### comment:51 in reply to: ↑ 50 ; follow-up: ↓ 53 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

Finally, in my patch, I had self(a), but Jeroen turned this into a. How carefully does Pari check whether stuff is in the right field?

Wow, even Sage doesn't check this:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sage Version 4.7.1, Release Date: 2011-08-11                       |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.        |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage: K.<a> = NumberField(x^3+x+1)
sage: L.<b> = NumberField(x^3+2*x+2)
sage: K(b)
a


so my self(a) was pretty useless and we may want to do this:

if not (a in self and b in self):
raise ValueError, ...


### comment:52 in reply to: ↑ 50 ; follow-ups: ↓ 55 ↓ 59 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

• Authors changed from Aly Deines, Marco Streng to Aly Deines, Marco Streng, Jeroen Demeyer
• Work issues changed from fix problems/add doctests with global hilbert symbols, check out seemingly unrelated doctest failures in other files to add/remove some doctests

There is still a duplicate example, and a lot of examples that return 1 now that they are corrected. I think we should remove some of these, and add some -1's such as the ones in my comment 2 days ago.

Also, what is the output type now? In my patch, I converted it to Integer. Jeroen removed that conversion, but what does cdef long give us?

It will be Python int. I see no reason to return a Sage Integer.

Finally, in my patch, I had self(a), but Jeroen turned this into a. How carefully does Pari check whether stuff is in the right field?

I only moved a = self(a) up in the code.

### comment:53 in reply to: ↑ 51 ; follow-ups: ↓ 54 ↓ 56 Changed 9 years ago by cremona

----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sage Version 4.7.1, Release Date: 2011-08-11                       |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.        |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage: K.<a> = NumberField(x^3+x+1)
sage: L.<b> = NumberField(x^3+2*x+2)
sage: K(b)
a


I think this is a horrible bug. There is no embedding from L to K! A very generic __call__ method is used, and is definitely not doing the right thing here.

### comment:54 in reply to: ↑ 53 Changed 9 years ago by davidloeffler

----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sage Version 4.7.1, Release Date: 2011-08-11                       |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.        |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage: K.<a> = NumberField(x^3+x+1)
sage: L.<b> = NumberField(x^3+2*x+2)
sage: K(b)
a


I think this is a horrible bug. There is no embedding from L to K! A very generic __call__ method is used, and is definitely not doing the right thing here.

I agree -- that's horrible! It's not so generic actually: the offending code is the method NumberField_absolute._coerce_from_other_number_field which just converts to a polynomial and back:

f = self.polynomial_ring()(x.polynomial())
return self._element_class(self, f)


This is mathematically meaningless unless either the other field is isomorphic to self, or x is actually in Q. I suggest we raise this on sage-nt, and maybe open a ticket to fix it ASAP.

### comment:55 in reply to: ↑ 52 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

It will be Python int. I see no reason to return a Sage Integer.

Python ints are fine with me, I was afraid it would be a pari object. I would have liked some uniformity, but that's missing already.

sage: type(legendre_symbol(3,5))
<type 'int'>
sage: type(hilbert_symbol(3,5,7))
<type 'sage.rings.integer.Integer'>
sage: type(jacobi_symbol(3,5))
<type 'sage.rings.integer.Integer'>


I want all symbols to behave nicely with division by Sage integers, but that's fine with int

sage: int(1)/ZZ(2)
1/2


### comment:56 in reply to: ↑ 53 ; follow-up: ↓ 58 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

I think this is a horrible bug. There is no embedding from L to K! A very generic __call__ method is used, and is definitely not doing the right thing here.

Is there a ticket for this yet?

### comment:58 in reply to: ↑ 56 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

I think this is a horrible bug. There is no embedding from L to K! A very generic __call__ method is used, and is definitely not doing the right thing here.

Is there a ticket for this yet?

### comment:59 in reply to: ↑ 52 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

There is still a duplicate example, and a lot of examples that return 1 now that they are corrected. I think we should remove some of these, and add some -1's such as the ones in my comment 2 days ago.

I could, but I wouldn't be able to test it, and it may need to be rebased afterwards: I failed to install #11130.

### comment:60 Changed 9 years ago by mstreng

• Status changed from needs_work to positive_review

Positive review for the reviewer patch. I noticed that it included extra -1 examples and removed the duplicate example, and I did not find removing examples worth the trouble.

I also managed to build #11130 and found that all tests pass. I'm assuming Jeroen gives a positive review to what he didn't change, and that his reviewer patch was ready for review, so I'm setting the whole ticket to positive review.

### comment:61 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

• Milestone changed from sage-5.0 to sage-4.7.3

### comment:62 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

• Work issues add/remove some doctests deleted

### comment:63 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

• Milestone changed from sage-4.7.3 to sage-pending

### comment:64 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

• Milestone changed from sage-pending to sage-4.7.3

### comment:65 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

• Milestone sage-4.7.3 deleted

Milestone sage-4.7.3 deleted

### comment:66 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

• Merged in set to sage-4.8.alpha1
• Milestone set to sage-4.8
• Resolution set to fixed
• Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.