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

BSD.py doctest failure due to timeout of Heegner index computation. #9127

Closed
sagetrac-drkirkby mannequin opened this issue Jun 3, 2010 · 11 comments
Closed

BSD.py doctest failure due to timeout of Heegner index computation. #9127

sagetrac-drkirkby mannequin opened this issue Jun 3, 2010 · 11 comments

Comments

@sagetrac-drkirkby
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-drkirkby mannequin commented Jun 3, 2010

This failure seems remarkably close to #8749, which is closed as fixed, but this is the same sort of problem on the same doctest. Note, changing SAGE_TIMOUT will not change this, as it appears (to me at least), Sage is switching from one algorithm to another in a time which is independent of the processor speed or settings of any timeout variables.

Hardware & associated software

  • Sun Blade 1000
  • 2 x 900 MHz UltraSPARC III+ CPUs
  • 2 GB RAM
  • Solaris 10 03/2005 (first release of Solaris 10)
  • gcc 4.4.3 (uses Sun linker and assembler)

== Sage version ==

  • 4.4.3.alpha0 and 4.4.3.alpha1

== The test failure ==
A full log of all tests can be found at

http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/sage-4.4.3.alpha0-Sun-Blade-1000-900MHz-Solaris-10-ptestlong.log.gz

(There are 3 failures, but I believe the other two are common to more than one platform and work is progressing on them)

I would expect to see this fail the same way on 't2' as 't2' is slower on single threaded tasks than the Blade 1000.

sage -t  -long devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/BSD.py
**********************************************************************
File "/export/home/drkirkby/sage-4.4.3.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/BSD.py", line 377:
    sage: E.prove_BSD(verbosity=2)               # long time
Expected:
    p = 2: True by 2-descent...
    True for p not in {2, 3} by Kolyvagin.
    ALERT: p = 3 left in Kolyvagin bound
        0 <= ord_p(#Sha) <= 2
        ord_p(#Sha_an) = 2
    Remaining primes:
    p = 3: irreducible, surjective, non-split multiplicative
        (0 <= ord_p <= 2)
    [3]
Got:
    p = 2: True by 2-descent
    Timeout stopped Heegner index computation...
    Proceeding to use heegner_index_bound instead.
    True for p not in {2, 3} by Kolyvagin.
    p = 3 may divide the Heegner index, for which only a bound was computed.
    ALERT: p = 3 left in Kolyvagin bound
        0 <= ord_p(#Sha) <= 2
        ord_p(#Sha_an) = 2
    Remaining primes:
    p = 3: irreducible, surjective, non-split multiplicative
        (0 <= ord_p <= 2)
    [3]
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
   1 of  35 in __main__.example_6
***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
For whitespace errors, see the file /export/home/drkirkby/.sage//tmp/.doctest_BSD.py
         [132.1 s]

CC: @robertwb @rlmill @williamstein @jhpalmieri

Component: elliptic curves

Author: Robert Miller

Reviewer: John Cremona, David Kirkby

Merged: sage-4.4.4.alpha1

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/9127

@sagetrac-drkirkby sagetrac-drkirkby mannequin added this to the sage-4.4.4 milestone Jun 3, 2010
@williamstein williamstein modified the milestones: sage-4.4.4, sage-4.4.3 Jun 3, 2010
@rlmill rlmill mannequin added the s: needs review label Jun 3, 2010
@JohnCremona
Copy link
Member

Author: Robert Miller

@JohnCremona
Copy link
Member

Reviewer: John Cremona

@JohnCremona
Copy link
Member

comment:4

This one confuses me. Before I apply the patch, the file passes long tests for me (ubuntu 64-bit, on 4.4.3). But after the patch it does not:

sage -t -long "sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/BSD.py"         
**********************************************************************
File "/storage/jec/sage-4.4.3/devel/sage-tests/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/BSD.py", line 377:
    sage: E.prove_BSD(verbosity=2)               # long time
Expected:
    p = 2: True by 2-descent
    ...
    True for p not in {2, 3} by Kolyvagin.
    ...
    ALERT: p = 3 left in Kolyvagin bound
        0 <= ord_p(#Sha) <= 2
        ord_p(#Sha_an) = 2
    Remaining primes:
    p = 3: irreducible, surjective, non-split multiplicative
        (0 <= ord_p <= 2)
    [3]
Got:
    p = 2: True by 2-descent
    True for p not in {2, 3} by Kolyvagin.
    ALERT: p = 3 left in Kolyvagin bound
        0 <= ord_p(#Sha) <= 2
        ord_p(#Sha_an) = 2
    Remaining primes:
    p = 3: irreducible, surjective, non-split multiplicative
        (0 <= ord_p <= 2)
    [3]
**********************************************************************

So whether or not the patch fixes things on some systems, it breaks others, so cannot be included.

@rlmill
Copy link
Mannequin

rlmill mannequin commented Jun 5, 2010

Attachment: trac_9127.patch.gz

@rlmill rlmill mannequin added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Jun 5, 2010
@sagetrac-drkirkby
Copy link
Mannequin Author

sagetrac-drkirkby mannequin commented Jun 5, 2010

comment:6

The patch results in the test passing on the Sun Blade 1000 where the test originally failed.

drkirkby@redstart:~/sage-4.4.3.alpha3$ ./sage -t  -long devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/BSD.py
sage -t -long "devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/BSD.py"
         [135.0 s]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All tests passed!
Total time for all tests: 135.0 seconds

I would be tempted to give it a positive review, though the fact John had a problem, it would be wise to wait and see if he has any further comments. But the changes look OK to me and it solves the problem.

Dave

@sagetrac-drkirkby
Copy link
Mannequin Author

sagetrac-drkirkby mannequin commented Jun 5, 2010

Changed reviewer from John Cremona to John Cremona, David Kirkby

@sagetrac-drkirkby
Copy link
Mannequin Author

sagetrac-drkirkby mannequin commented Jun 5, 2010

comment:8

Once this issue is resolved (and it looks like it will be very soon), #8409 can be closed.

Dave

@rlmill
Copy link
Mannequin

rlmill mannequin commented Jun 7, 2010

comment:9

Replying to @sagetrac-drkirkby:

I would be tempted to give it a positive review, though the fact John had a problem, it would be wise to wait and see if he has any further comments. But the changes look OK to me and it solves the problem.

Dave

I think all of the issues with this ticket have been resolved.

@sagetrac-drkirkby
Copy link
Mannequin Author

sagetrac-drkirkby mannequin commented Jun 7, 2010

comment:10

In which case, positive review. I'm happy with it.

@JohnCremona
Copy link
Member

comment:11

I am happy. (I thought I had reviewed the new patch, but maybe I was dreaming!)

@mwhansen
Copy link
Contributor

mwhansen commented Jun 9, 2010

Merged: sage-4.4.4.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