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

split off Galois representations and modular parametrization from ell_rational_field.py #8118

Closed
chriswuthrich opened this issue Jan 29, 2010 · 20 comments

Comments

@chriswuthrich
Copy link
Contributor

The file ell_rational_field.py is huge and should be split up further. This is especially important for the documentation, currently it is not very user-friendy to find a function in the reference.

I propose a first change.

  • The modular paratrization class goes into a separate file. (maybe the modular_degree should mover there too ?)

  • The functions concerning the Galois representation are moved to a separate field. I changed the functions like is_surjective and is_irreducible to deprecated. I believe for instance the latter clashes with the irreducibility of the scheme E.

CC: @JohnCremona @williamstein @robertwb @roed314

Component: elliptic curves

Keywords: galois representation, modular parametrization

Author: Chris Wuthrich

Reviewer: John Cremona, Minh Van Nguyen

Merged: sage-4.3.3.alpha1

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/8118

@chriswuthrich
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:1

This patch is my first proposal for changes.

It will also allow me to work more on the Galois representation side. For instance I deleted the second output of non-surjective since it was not used anywhere. I will build this in later in a different way, while also improving the outputs.

Let me know if you think these changes go too far.

What was the decision on deprecation policy of sage ? Is my handling here the correct one ?

What is a `TestSuite(s).run()` doctest. ? Where do I find the information on that ?

I have first to test it myself, before I set it to "needs review".

@JohnCremona
Copy link
Member

comment:3

I approve of this, though I don't have time to look at the patch right now.

@chriswuthrich
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:4

I don't understand this. I exported the patch after adding the two new files to hg. Then I apply it to a new clone.

The patch applies fine and the tests pass. But when I do -docbuild reference html it tells me that it can not find the new files :

 /usr/local/sage/devel/sage/doc/en/reference/plane_curves.rst:7: (WARNING/2) toctree references unknown document u'sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/modular_parametrization'                                 
/usr/local/sage/devel/sage/doc/en/reference/plane_curves.rst:7: (WARNING/2) toctree references unknown document u'sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/gal_reps'     

I must be doing something stupidly wrong. Help !

@chriswuthrich
Copy link
Contributor Author

updated.

@JohnCremona
Copy link
Member

comment:5

Attachment: trac_8118.patch.gz

I applied the patch to 4.3.2.alpha1: OK with some fuzz on hunk #7.

Tests in sage/schemes/elliptic_curves: all tests (includng long) pass.

sage -docbuild reference html worked fine for me (it warned about

/home/jec/sage-4.3.2.alpha1/devel/sage/doc/en/reference/sage/geometry/polytope.rst:: WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree
/home/jec/sage-4.3.2.alpha1/devel/sage/doc/en/reference/sage/misc/attach.rst:: WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree

but that's not from this patch!)

I have not actually looked at the html docs for the new files yet, but will do so. Meanwhile: positive review.

@qed777
Copy link
Mannequin

qed777 mannequin commented Feb 10, 2010

comment:6

My queue for 4.3.3.alpha0 is

trac_8219.patch
trac_3683-upgrade_moinmoin.patch
trac_8183-French_pdf.patch
trac_8190-docbuild.patch
trac_8184-eclib.patch
trac_8184-indentation.patch
trac_8155.patch
trac_8124-selmer-nf.review.patch
trac_7575.patch
trac_7575-followup.patch
trac_8189-hg.patch
trac_7935.patch
trac_7935b.2.patch

Could you let me know how I should apply #8118 and #4453? Thanks!

@sagetrac-mvngu
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Feb 13, 2010

Work Issues: rebase against Sage 4.3.3.alpha0

@sagetrac-mvngu
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Feb 13, 2010

comment:7

I get hunk failures when applying trac_8118.patch to Sage 4.3.3.alpha0:

[mvngu@sage sage-main]$ pwd
/dev/shm/mvngu/sage-4.3.3.alpha0/devel/sage-main
[mvngu@sage sage-main]$ hg qimport https://github.com/sagemath/sage-prod/files/10647875/trac_8118.patch.gz && hg qpush
adding trac_8118.patch to series file
applying trac_8118.patch
patching file sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py
Hunk #2 FAILED at 45
Hunk #7 succeeded at 4141 with fuzz 2 (offset 99 lines).
Hunk #16 FAILED at 5294
Hunk #17 FAILED at 5327
Hunk #18 FAILED at 5367
Hunk #19 FAILED at 5381
Hunk #20 FAILED at 5576
Hunk #21 FAILED at 5589
Hunk #22 FAILED at 5610
Hunk #23 FAILED at 5620
Hunk #24 FAILED at 5692
Hunk #25 FAILED at 5702
Hunk #26 FAILED at 5717
Hunk #27 FAILED at 5728
13 out of 28 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py.rej
patch failed, unable to continue (try -v)
patch failed, rejects left in working dir
errors during apply, please fix and refresh trac_8118.patch

Perhaps the attachment needs a rebase.

@chriswuthrich
Copy link
Contributor Author

Attachment: trac_8118_rebased.2.patch.gz

exported against 4.3.3.alpha0

@chriswuthrich
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:8

No, that patch is not good. I will have to modify BSD.py, too.

@chriswuthrich
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:9

OK. so let's hope I did it correctly this time. The patch trac_8118_rebased.patch can be applied to 4.3.3.alpha0. Please apply it before any other patch for ell_rational_field, since it is likely to break again.

@chriswuthrich
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:10

Sorry, I tried to do things too quickly..

@chriswuthrich
Copy link
Contributor Author

Attachment: trac_8118_rebased.patch.gz

exported against 4.3.3.alpha0

@chriswuthrich
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:11

OK. This time, I think I got it right. The patch trac_8118_rebased.patch should apply fine to 4.3.3.alpha0. As said before, it should be applied before any other patch involving ell_rational_field, because I reordered the imports in the beginning of this file.

On my machine all tests pass. (Except for a problem in heegner.py which is already there on 4.3.3.alpha0.)

I don't know if I am allowed to set this back to positive review, since it is only a rebase. So I put a need_review instead. But it would be good if it gets in 4.3.3.

@sagetrac-mvngu
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Feb 18, 2010

Changed work issues from rebase against Sage 4.3.3.alpha0 to none

@sagetrac-mvngu
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Feb 18, 2010

comment:12

The rebase looks good. No drama when doctesting.

@sagetrac-mvngu
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Feb 18, 2010

Reviewer: John Cremona, Minh Van Nguyen

@sagetrac-mvngu
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Feb 18, 2010

Author: Chris Wuthrich

@sagetrac-mvngu
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Feb 18, 2010

comment:13

Merged trac_8118_rebased.patch.

@sagetrac-mvngu
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Feb 18, 2010

Merged: sage-4.3.3.alpha1

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