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

Add elimination for ideals over noncommutative rings #26911

Open
miguelmarco opened this issue Dec 18, 2018 · 13 comments
Open

Add elimination for ideals over noncommutative rings #26911

miguelmarco opened this issue Dec 18, 2018 · 13 comments

Comments

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor

This ticket adds the option of eliminating variables from noncommutative ideals.

CC: @tscrim @simon-king-jena @johnperry-math

Component: algebra

Author: Miguel Marco

Branch: u/mmarco/eliminate_noncommutative_ideal

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/26911

@miguelmarco miguelmarco added this to the sage-8.6 milestone Dec 18, 2018
@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

Changed branch from u/mmarco/eliminate_noncommutative_ideal to none

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

Author: Miguel Marco

@miguelmarco

This comment has been minimized.

@simon-king-jena
Copy link
Member

comment:3

I'm puzzled. Didn't we already have this, of course in the case where Gröbnerbases of twosided ideals exist (such as G-Algebras that are implemented in Singular)?

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:4

I also expected this to be already available, but I wasn't able to find it, so I implemented (it is just a matter of adding a method that wraps the corresponding singular call).

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:5

By the way, I am tempted to implement this also for ideals over quotient rings (by lifting to the cover ring, adding the ideal that acts as kernel of the quotient, compute the elimination there and then project again). But i want to hear your thoughts on that because:

  1. I am not completely sure if that mathematically makes sense. and
  2. I am also not sure what should be the right class to implement it in.

So, what do you think?

@simon-king-jena
Copy link
Member

comment:6

Replying to @miguelmarco:

By the way, I am tempted to implement this also for ideals over quotient rings (by lifting to the cover ring, adding the ideal that acts as kernel of the quotient, compute the elimination there and then project again). But i want to hear your thoughts on that because:

  1. I am not completely sure if that mathematically makes sense.

I think so.

and
2) I am also not sure what should be the right class to implement it in.

So, what do you think?

I am VERY MUCH sure that it is implemented. Actually I clearly remember writing examples a couple of years ago for quotient rings of non-commutative rings. Of course, the general ideal containment problem for two-sided ideals in non-commutative rings is unsolvable. But the code contains slots for a "reduction()" method (or perhaps it was called "reduce()"). And IF that method is implemented, then quotient rings automatically are provided.

I don't have time to look into it right now, but I am sure everything can be found, for example, in sage.algebras.letterplace (it provides testing equality of cosets modulo two-sided weighted-homogeneous ideals).

@simon-king-jena
Copy link
Member

comment:7

Ouch. Maybe I was totally misunderstanding what this ticket is about. I thought it was about "reduction modulo Gröbner bases" ("computing normal forms"). Now I realise that you talk about elimination of variables, which of course is something completely different.

So, perhaps it is needed to disregard my previous comments...

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

@embray
Copy link
Contributor

embray commented Jan 15, 2019

comment:9

Retarging tickets optimistically to the next milestone. If you are responsible for this ticket (either its reporter or owner) and don't believe you are likely to complete this ticket before the next release (8.7) please retarget this ticket's milestone to sage-pending or sage-wishlist.

@embray embray modified the milestones: sage-8.6, sage-8.7 Jan 15, 2019
@embray
Copy link
Contributor

embray commented Mar 25, 2019

comment:10

Ticket retargeted after milestone closed (if you don't believe this ticket is appropriate for the Sage 8.8 release please retarget manually)

@embray embray modified the milestones: sage-8.7, sage-8.8 Mar 25, 2019
@embray
Copy link
Contributor

embray commented Jun 14, 2019

comment:11

As the Sage-8.8 release milestone is pending, we should delete the sage-8.8 milestone for tickets that are not actively being worked on or that still require significant work to move forward. If you feel that this ticket should be included in the next Sage release at the soonest please set its milestone to the next release milestone (sage-8.9).

@embray embray removed this from the sage-8.8 milestone Jun 14, 2019
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

3 participants