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

Function to test for algebraic dependence of polynomials #11524

Closed
sagetrac-araichev mannequin opened this issue Jun 21, 2011 · 12 comments
Closed

Function to test for algebraic dependence of polynomials #11524

sagetrac-araichev mannequin opened this issue Jun 21, 2011 · 12 comments

Comments

@sagetrac-araichev
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-araichev mannequin commented Jun 21, 2011

Added a function to sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_sequence.py to return an irreducible annihilating polynomial for the polynomials in self, if those polynomials are algebraically dependent. Otherwise it returns 0.

CC: @malb

Component: algebra

Keywords: algebraic dependence polynomials

Author: Alex Raichev

Reviewer: Martin Albrecht

Merged: sage-4.7.2.alpha0

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/11524

@sagetrac-araichev sagetrac-araichev mannequin added this to the sage-4.7.1 milestone Jun 21, 2011
@malb
Copy link
Member

malb commented Jun 21, 2011

Reviewer: Martin Albrecht

@malb
Copy link
Member

malb commented Jun 21, 2011

comment:3
  • Shouldn't self be self, i.e. not typeset as mathematics?
    • It would be good to show what the algebraic dependency is, i.e. what the polynomial means, by evaluating it in the doctest.
    • "NOTES:" should ".. note::" IIRC
    • it would be nice to have a more verbatim commit message, such that reading the logs makes sense
    • wouldn't it be better to return all elements of the elimination ideal?

@malb
Copy link
Member

malb commented Jun 21, 2011

Work Issues: documentation

@malb
Copy link
Member

malb commented Jun 21, 2011

comment:4

erm, the first line should read: `self` and ``self``.

@malb
Copy link
Member

malb commented Jun 21, 2011

comment:5

Oh, and isn't it "algebraic dependency"?

@sagetrac-araichev
Copy link
Mannequin Author

sagetrac-araichev mannequin commented Jun 22, 2011

comment:6

Thanks for your help, Martin. I'm a newbie developer, so please bear with me. I incorporated your corrections.

  • I evaluated the annihilating polynomials at self in the doctest to get 0. Is that what you mean?
  • I think 'dependence' is the more conventional math noun: 'algebraic independence' and 'algebraic dependence'.
  • Yes, it would be better to return the entire elimination ideal (did it now), which is what i meant to do initially but got sidetracked into making a tailored version for my bigger project.

@malb
Copy link
Member

malb commented Jun 22, 2011

comment:7

Replying to @sagetrac-araichev:

Thanks for your help, Martin. I'm a newbie developer, so please bear with me. I incorporated your corrections.

NP at all.

  • I evaluated the annihilating polynomials at self in the doctest to get 0. Is that what you mean?

yes, thanks.

  • I think 'dependence' is the more conventional math noun: 'algebraic independence' and 'algebraic dependence'.

Okay, convinced :)

  • Yes, it would be better to return the entire elimination ideal (did it now), which is what i meant to do initially but got sidetracked into making a tailored version for my bigger project.

Positive review.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

Changed work issues from documentation to none

@jdemeyer jdemeyer modified the milestones: sage-4.7.1, sage-4.7.2 Jun 22, 2011
@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:9

Your patch has two erroneous lines on top:

Detected SAGE64 flag
Building Sage on OS X in 64-bit mode

Please let me know which version of Sage you used to make this patch. Could you try upgrading to sage-4.7.1.alpha2, export the patch again and let me know whether the issue persists (it should be fixed)? In any case, the patch needs to be updated.

@sagetrac-araichev
Copy link
Mannequin Author

sagetrac-araichev mannequin commented Jun 26, 2011

Attachment: trac_11524.patch.gz

@sagetrac-araichev
Copy link
Mannequin Author

sagetrac-araichev mannequin commented Jun 26, 2011

comment:10

Hi jdemeyer:

I used Sage 4.7 to make the patch. I took your advice and upgraded to sage-4.7.1.alpha2 and retested the patch. The two erroneous lines disappeared. The new patch is up.

Thanks.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

Merged: sage-4.7.2.alpha0

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants