Quaternion maximal_order fails
#37417
Labels
Comments
|
Sorry, I missed #37217 . |
GiacomoPope
added a commit
to GiacomoPope/sage
that referenced
this issue
Feb 25, 2024
S17A05
added a commit
to S17A05/sage_development
that referenced
this issue
Mar 21, 2024
S17A05
added a commit
to S17A05/sage_development
that referenced
this issue
Mar 21, 2024
vbraun
pushed a commit
to vbraun/sage
that referenced
this issue
Apr 11, 2024
…l_order()` of `quaternion_algebra.py`
- Corrected in `.normalize_basis_at_p` the wrong assignments of `f0,
f1`: The idea is to replace `f0` by `f0 + f1` and `f1` by `f0`
_simultaneously_ - the original code, however, first replaced `f0` by
`f0 + f1` and then copied the value to `f1`, hence causing a decrease in
dimension
- Corrected an index error just before the recursive call of
`normalize_basis_at_p` in the off-diagnonal case for `p = 2` (the
`else`-block)
- In `.maximal_order()` the intermediate basis `e_n` might not define an
order anymore (as seen in the comments, this was known to the author(s)
of the method) - therefore we need to manually compute the discriminant
in the loop instead of relying on the `.discriminant()`-method of
quaternion orders
- Adapted an example in `.maximal_order()` to use the new method
`.is_maximal()`
Fixes sagemath#37217 (both parts) and sagemath#37417.
Disclaimer:
I am aware of sagemath#37239, but since progress on that PR seems to have
halted, I took the liberty to fix the issues myself :)
URL: sagemath#37644
Reported by: Sebastian A. Spindler
Reviewer(s): Matthias Köppe
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Steps To Reproduce
Expected Behavior
work
Actual Behavior
not
Additional Information
Not sure if this is normal, as I don't have enough quaternion knowledge to determine.
@yyyyx4
Environment
Checklist
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: