giacpy_sage doctest failure and new libsingular cf.type == n_unknown ring test #21884

EmmanuelCharpentier · 2016-11-17T08:31:57Z

Related to #21860 : one failure in ptestlong :

charpent@asus16-ec:/usr/local/sage-7$ sage -t --long --warn-long 100.3 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py
Running doctests with ID 2016-11-17-09-17-43-cce569e2.
Git branch: t/21860/giacblas
Using --optional=database_gap,giac,giacpy_sage,mpir,python2,sage
Doctesting 1 file.
sage -t --long --warn-long 100.3 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py", line 3533, in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.NCPolynomialIdeal.groebner_basis
Failed example:
    ideal(J.transformed_basis()).change_ring(P).interreduced_basis()  # optional - giacpy_sage
Expected:
    [a - 60*c^3 + 158/7*c^2 + 8/7*c - 1, b + 30*c^3 - 79/7*c^2 + 3/7*c, c^4 - 10/21*c^3 + 1/84*c^2 + 1/84*c]
Got:
    [7*a - 420*c^3 + 158*c^2 + 8*c - 7, 7*b + 210*c^3 - 79*c^2 + 3*c, 84*c^4 - 40*c^3 + c^2 + c]
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of  67 in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.NCPolynomialIdeal.groebner_basis
    [723 tests, 1 failure, 9.10 s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage -t --long --warn-long 100.3 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py  # 1 doctest failed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total time for all tests: 9.2 seconds
    cpu time: 15.5 seconds
    cumulative wall time: 9.1 seconds

in fact it is related to the singular update #17254 where all the

if r.ringtype == 0:

were replaced by

if r.cf.type == n_unknown:

but it seems not equivalent with QQ coefficients.

Remarks: The interred_libsingular function of multi_polynomial_ideal_libsingular.pyx
ends with an explicit:

# divide head by coeffi
...

and the groebner_basis function doc have still five examples giving:

[a - 60*c^3 + 158/7*c^2 + 8/7*c - 1, b + 30*c^3 - 79/7*c^2 + 3/7*c, c^4 - 10/21*c^3 + 1/84*c^2 + 1/84*c]

so what is the best thing for the interreduced_basis command to output?

CC: @sagetrac-parisse @frederichan-IMJPRG @jpflori

Component: doctest coverage

Author: Frederic Han

Branch/Commit: fd60c06

Reviewer: Emmanuel Charpentier

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21884

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-17T17:31:01Z

comment:1

I don't think that it is related to #21860 (giac update), but it is related to the singular upgrade:

with sage 7.5beta2 (singular4)

sage: P.<a,b,c> = PolynomialRing(QQ,3, order='lex') 
sage: toto=ideal([7*a - 420*c^3 + 158*c^2 + 8*c - 7, 7*b + 210*c^3 - 79*c^2 + 3*c, 84*c^4 - 40*c^3 + c^2 + c])
....: 
sage: toto.interreduced_basis()
[7*a - 420*c^3 + 158*c^2 + 8*c - 7, 7*b + 210*c^3 - 79*c^2 + 3*c, 84*c^4 - 40*c^3 + c^2 + c]
sage:

but with older versions with singular3 it gives

[a - 60*c^3 + 158/7*c^2 + 8/7*c - 1, b + 30*c^3 - 79/7*c^2 + 3/7*c, c^4 - 10/21*c^3 + 1/84*c^2 + 1/84*c]

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-17T18:23:39Z

comment:2

In fact the doctest was not using the result computed by giac but was recomputing everything with singular so I have changed this.

I have not yet changed the output doc string because it seems not coherent with the documentation of
interreduced_basis:

   If this ideal is spanned by (f_1, ..., f_n) this method returns
   (g_1, ..., g_s) such that:

   * (f_1,...,f_n) = (g_1,...,g_s)

   * LT(g_i) != LT(g_j) for all i != j

   * LT(g_i) does not divide m for all monomials m of

        {g_1,...,g_{i-1},g_{i+1},...,g_s}

   * LC(g_i) == 1 for all i if the coefficient ring is a field.

but

sage: P.<a,b,c> = PolynomialRing(QQ,3, order='lex')
sage: toto=ideal([7*a - 420*c^3 + 158*c^2 + 8*c - 7, 7*b + 210*c^3 - 79*c^2 + 3*c, 84*c^4 - 40*c^3 + c^2 + c])
....: 
sage: g=toto.interreduced_basis()
sage: g[0].lc()
7
sage: toto.base_ring()
Rational Field

Last 10 new commits:

`b613d7d`	`Merge branch 'public/giacpyGB' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into develop`
`eb69ec5`	`Merge branch 'master' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into develop`
`5e4cb99`	`Merge branch 'public/giacpyGB' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into develop`
`d17e348`	`Merge branch 'develop' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into develop`
`ff5a753`	`Merge branch 'develop' of git://github.com/sagemath/sage into develop`
`3ddf1ca`	`Merge branch 'develop' of git://github.com/sagemath/sage into develop`
`b2d156f`	`Merge branch 'develop' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into develop`
`428ab26`	`Merge branch 'develop' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into develop`
`0b6ebcd`	`Merge branch 'develop' of git://github.com/sagemath/sage into develop`
`7accb23`	`The doctest was not using the result computed by giacpy`

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-17T18:23:39Z

Changed dependencies from #21860 to none

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-17T18:23:39Z

Commit: 7accb23

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-17T18:23:39Z

Branch: public/giacpy21884

jdemeyer · 2016-11-19T08:46:39Z

comment:4

15 commits to change just one line of code? Please squash this to one commit :-)

jdemeyer · 2016-11-19T08:49:35Z

comment:5

And change the title to something which refers to Singular.

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-19T11:19:36Z

comment:6

sorry for the messy branch, here is a new one

New commits:

`226744d`	`The result computed by giacpy was not used in the doc and confused the reader`

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-19T11:19:36Z

Changed commit from 7accb23 to 226744d

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-19T11:19:36Z

Changed branch from public/giacpy21884 to public/trac21884

dimpase · 2016-11-19T18:28:19Z

comment:7

how about changing the doc of interreduced_basis where it says that LCs will be 1 if working over a field, i.e.

* LC(g_i) == 1 for all i if the coefficient ring is a field.

is no longer true.

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-20T10:05:54Z

comment:8

Before doing just that, my question is also about how QQ was detected in the old code and does the new condition detect any ring, because if I grep the old test I already have:

macbookito(fred)$ grep -r "ringtype == 0" src/sage
src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_libsingular.pyx:            if r.ringtype == 0 or r.cf.nDivBy(p_GetCoeff(f._poly, r), p_GetCoeff(g._poly, r)):
src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal_libsingular.pyx:    if r.ringtype == 0:
src/sage/rings/polynomial/plural.pyx:            if r.ringtype == 0 or r.cf.nDivBy(p_GetCoeff(f._poly, r), p_GetCoeff(g._poly, r)):
src/sage/libs/singular/singular.pyx:        if _ring.ringtype == 0:
src/sage/libs/singular/singular.pyx:        if _ring.ringtype == 0:
macbookito(fred)$ grep -r "ringtype != 0" src/sage
src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_libsingular.pyx:        if r.ringtype != 0:
src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_libsingular.pyx:        if _ring.ringtype != 0:
src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_libsingular.pyx:        if _ring.ringtype != 0:
src/sage/libs/singular/ring.pyx:    if ringtype != 0:

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-23T11:38:05Z

comment:9

So if I am right it seems that the old test ringtype != 0 was used as a trick to detect if the ring of coefficient was not a field, and seems equivalent to

cf.type == one of n_Z, n_Zm, n_Zmn, n_Z2n

in src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_libsingular.pyx
in the gcd and lcm a test has been added so the code is equivalent to the old one.
if r.cf.type == n_Znm or r.cf.type == n_Zn or r.cf.type == n_Z2m :
raise NotImplementedError("Division of multivariate polynomials over non fields by n

in interreduced the normalisation of the head coefficient may be never executed and is not equivalent to the old code. So I suggest 2 modification.
either:

change the doc a dima suggest to do the same as singular and delete the normalisation code
or
replace the cf.type == n_unknown by
if r.cf.type != n_Znm and r.cf.type != n_Zn and r.cf.type != n_Z2m
and keep the doc as is

for plural.pyx it should be OK because of the or

But in src/sage/libs/singular/singular.pyx the 2 substitutions gives strange code:


    elif isinstance(base, IntegerModRing_generic):
        if _ring.cf.type == n_unknown:
            return base(_ring.cf.cfInt(n, _ring.cf))
        return si2sa_ZZmod(n, _ring, base)

    elif isinstance(elem._parent, IntegerModRing_generic):
        if _ring.cf.type == n_unknown:
            return n_Init(int(elem),_ring)
        return sa2si_ZZmod(elem, _ring)

for instance n_Zp had ringtype == 0

sagetrac-git · 2016-11-24T11:49:46Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

`bde7be0`	`change test on cf.type in interred`

sagetrac-git · 2016-11-24T11:49:46Z

Changed commit from 226744d to bde7be0

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-24T11:54:19Z

comment:11

NB: I chose solution 2 because the reduced command of multi_polynomial_sequence.py also talk of normalized polynomials and use the libgiac interred:

        if isinstance(R,MPolynomialRing_libsingular):
            return PolynomialSequence(R, interred_libsingular(self), immutable=True)

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-24T12:03:23Z

comment:12

NB: I am not confortable enough with sage and singular to modify the == n_unkown in:
src/sage/libs/singular/singular.pyx

Does anyone plan to change it or can I switch to need review?

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2016-11-24T12:03:23Z

Author: Frederic Han

sagetrac-git · 2017-03-11T09:25:58Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

`90cc488`	`The result computed by giacpy was not used in the doc and confused the reader`
`fd60c06`	`change test on cf.type in interred`

sagetrac-git · 2017-03-11T09:25:58Z

Changed commit from bde7be0 to fd60c06

jdemeyer · 2017-03-11T09:26:19Z

comment:16

Rebased to 7.6.beta6

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2017-03-17T14:22:53Z

comment:17

Is it good to go ?

frederichan-IMJPRG · 2017-03-17T14:49:25Z

comment:18

I have not run the test suite for while but we should try if other doctests have been added in between

EmmanuelCharpentier · 2017-03-18T11:00:17Z

comment:19

In 7.6.rc1 + #20523 + #21884 (present ticket) :

giacpy_sage passes its own test suite (237 tests pased, 0 failed, 5 items with no test)
Sage pass ptestlong with one failure :

----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage -t --long src/sage/homology/simplicial_complex.py  # 1 doctest failed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

which is transient (i. e. pass without failure when ran standalone).

==> positive review.

EmmanuelCharpentier · 2017-03-18T11:03:02Z

comment:20

Forgot to sign the review...

EmmanuelCharpentier · 2017-03-18T11:03:02Z

Reviewer: Emmanuel Charpentier

EmmanuelCharpentier · 2017-03-18T11:10:08Z

comment:21

Note : I do not understand the patchbot failure. Someone with a better understanding of the patchbot system should investigate the issue...

vbraun · 2017-03-19T16:25:40Z

Changed branch from public/trac21884 to fd60c06

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin added this to the sage-7.5 milestone Nov 17, 2016

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin added c: packages: optional labels Nov 17, 2016

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

jdemeyer added t: tests and removed c: packages: optional labels Nov 19, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG changed the title ~~giacpy_sage has a doctest failure~~ giacpy_sage doctest failure and new libsingular cf.type == 0 ring test Nov 19, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG changed the title ~~giacpy_sage doctest failure and new libsingular cf.type == 0 ring test~~ giacpy_sage doctest failure and new libsingular cf.type == n_unknown ring test Nov 20, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG added the s: needs review label Nov 25, 2016

jdemeyer modified the milestones: sage-7.5, sage-7.6 Mar 10, 2017

jdemeyer added p: blocker / 1 and removed p: major / 3 labels Mar 10, 2017

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Mar 18, 2017

vbraun removed the s: positive review label Mar 19, 2017

vbraun closed this as completed in b9bd305 Mar 19, 2017

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

giacpy_sage doctest failure and new libsingular cf.type == n_unknown ring test #21884

giacpy_sage doctest failure and new libsingular cf.type == n_unknown ring test #21884

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Nov 17, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 17, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 17, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 17, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 17, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 17, 2016

This comment has been minimized.

jdemeyer commented Nov 19, 2016

jdemeyer commented Nov 19, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 19, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 19, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 19, 2016

dimpase commented Nov 19, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 20, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 23, 2016

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Nov 24, 2016

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Nov 24, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 24, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 24, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 24, 2016

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Mar 11, 2017

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Mar 11, 2017

jdemeyer commented Mar 11, 2017

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Mar 17, 2017

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Mar 17, 2017

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Mar 18, 2017

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Mar 18, 2017

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Mar 18, 2017

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Mar 18, 2017

vbraun commented Mar 19, 2017

giacpy_sage doctest failure and new libsingular cf.type == n_unknown ring test #21884

giacpy_sage doctest failure and new libsingular cf.type == n_unknown ring test #21884

Comments

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Nov 17, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 17, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 17, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 17, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 17, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 17, 2016

This comment has been minimized.

jdemeyer commented Nov 19, 2016

jdemeyer commented Nov 19, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 19, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 19, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 19, 2016

dimpase commented Nov 19, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 20, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 23, 2016

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Nov 24, 2016

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Nov 24, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 24, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 24, 2016

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Nov 24, 2016

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Mar 11, 2017

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Mar 11, 2017

jdemeyer commented Mar 11, 2017

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Mar 17, 2017

frederichan-IMJPRG commented Mar 17, 2017

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Mar 18, 2017

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Mar 18, 2017

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Mar 18, 2017

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Mar 18, 2017

vbraun commented Mar 19, 2017