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

quo_rem fails for multivariate polynomial rings over function fields #17536

Closed
bhutz opened this issue Dec 21, 2014 · 5 comments
Closed

quo_rem fails for multivariate polynomial rings over function fields #17536

bhutz opened this issue Dec 21, 2014 · 5 comments

Comments

@bhutz
Copy link

bhutz commented Dec 21, 2014

The quo_rem function fails for multivariate polynomial rings over function fields. This seems related to change #17033.

R.<c>=FunctionField(QQ)
S.<x,y>=R[]
f=x^4*y + 2*c*x^2*y^3 - x*y^4 + (c^2 + c)*y^5
g=x^2*y - x*y^2 + c*y^3
f.quo_rem(g)

CC: @bhutz

Component: algebraic geometry

Reviewer: Travis Scrimshaw

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17536

@bhutz bhutz added this to the sage-6.5 milestone Dec 21, 2014
@bhutz
Copy link
Author

bhutz commented Dec 22, 2014

comment:1

In working on #17535, I see that the failed example I list actually works with 6.5.beta3.
Perhaps this has already been fixed somewhere.

@kwankyu kwankyu removed this from the sage-6.5 milestone Jan 16, 2017
@tscrim
Copy link
Collaborator

tscrim commented Jan 17, 2017

comment:3

Do we want to add a doctest to prevent a regression since we don't know exactly what fixed this?

@bhutz
Copy link
Author

bhutz commented Jan 17, 2017

comment:4

I wish I would have put what the failure was...

Looking at the code it does nothing put pass the input straight to singular and return the output from singular. Maybe the issue was the conversion of the singular output back to Sage or maybe it was issue with the Singular computation. I'm not sure at this point.

I don't think we need another specific test for this as it is tested implicitly in some of the schememorphism_polynomial functionality (for example in dynatomic_polynomial as well as in homogenize/dehomogenize). That is how I found the issue in the first place.

@tscrim
Copy link
Collaborator

tscrim commented Jan 17, 2017

comment:5

Okay. Then we can close as works-for-me.

@tscrim
Copy link
Collaborator

tscrim commented Jan 17, 2017

Reviewer: Travis Scrimshaw

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