Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use proper morphisms in primary decomposition helpers #3109

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 21, 2023
Merged

Conversation

thofma
Copy link
Collaborator

@thofma thofma commented Dec 15, 2023

No description provided.

Copy link
Collaborator

@HechtiDerLachs HechtiDerLachs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Much appreciated, thanks!

@@ -71,7 +68,8 @@ function _expand_coefficient_field(
theta = gens(A_exp)[1:r]
alpha = gens(coefficient_ring(A))
to_A = hom(A_exp, A, vcat(A.(alpha), gens(A)))
to_A_exp = hom(A, A_exp, x->evaluate(x.data, theta), gens(A_exp)[r+1:end])
#to_A_exp = hom(A, A_exp, x->evaluate(x.data, theta), gens(A_exp)[r+1:end])
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a reason why you wanted to keep this specific line? I.e. any doubts here?

Also: Does your new hom have a check flag which we could/should set to false in all these calls?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops, just an artifact. Yes, there is a check argument, so we "could". I can enable it if you want. I have make another commit anyway.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Alright. Whether we should depends on how expensive the check is. Since the necessary Groebner bases computations here are carried out automatically with the creation of the quotient rings anyway, I think it's OK to leave it as is.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree. If it turns out to be a bottleneck, we can add it later.

@thofma thofma merged commit 25af855 into master Dec 21, 2023
16 of 20 checks passed
@thofma thofma deleted the th/primadj branch December 21, 2023 08:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants