#9666 closed enhancement (duplicate)
Implement __hash__ for NumberFieldIdeal
| Reported by: | jdemeyer | Owned by: | davidloeffler |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
| Component: | number fields | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Merged in: | ||
| Authors: | Jeroen Demeyer | Reviewers: | |
| Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
| Branch: | Commit: | ||
| Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
I propose to use a HNF Z-basis of number field ideals to compute the hash of an ideal.
Attachments (1)
Change History (8)
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
When I ran the test suite there were a bunch of failures in
devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_quotient_ring.py
e.g.,
File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/wstein/build/sage-4.5.2.rc0/devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_quotient_ring.py", line 1141:
sage: D.selmer_group([K.ideal(2, -a+1), K.ideal(3, a+1), K.ideal(a)], 3)
Expected:
[2, -a - 1, -a]
Got:
[2, -a - 1, a]
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.5.3 to sage-4.6
Apologies. I did not expect the hash to have influence on this, I should have tested better.
I will postpone this to the release after the PARI upgrade, i.e. sage-4.6.1 or something.
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by
- Resolution set to duplicate
- Status changed from needs_work to closed
The same is fixed correctly in #9400. So I'm closing this as a dupe of that.
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.6 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
You need to add a doctest that illustrates use of the hash function, on both 32 and 64-bit computers.