Re: [sage-devel] bug in cuspidal subspace of ModularSymbols with character over p-adic field
Thanks for the example! I'm hoping to work on p-adic linear algebra over the next few months, and having examples of failures is always useful to test improvements. But that's a pretty impressive discrepancy, between 1345499989865120018402 and 0. I don't have time to look into it now, but I would guess that the dimension formula is getting the order of this character wrong, or casting a value into ZZ, or something else that's not sensible in this context. David On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:33 PM, wrote: > The following code crashes and asks me to report this as a bug: > > sage: Qp = pAdicField(11) > > sage: G = DirichletGroup(11,Qp) > > sage: omega = G.0 > > sage: M = ModularSymbols(omega^2,2) > > sage: M > > Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 > + 7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4 + 9*11^5 + 8*11^6 + 7*11^8 + 8*11^9 + > 6*11^10 + 6*11^11 + 5*11^12 + 5*11^13 + 5*11^14 + 7*11^15 + 10*11^16 + > 5*11^17 + 3*11^18 + 5*11^19 + O(11^20)], sign 0, over 11-adic Field with > capped relative precision 20 > > sage: M.cuspidal_submodule() > > --- > > AssertionErrorTraceback (most recent call > last) > > in () > > > 1 M.cuspidal_submodule() > > > > /Applications/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/modular/modsym/ambient.pyc > in cuspidal_submodule(self) > > * 1399* d = self._cuspidal_submodule_dimension_formula() > > * 1400* if not d is None: > > -> 1401 assert d == S.dimension(), "According to > dimension formulas the cuspidal subspace of \"%s\" has dimension %s; > however, computing it using modular symbols we obtained %s, so there is a > bug (please report!)."%(self, d, S.dimension()) > > * 1402* self.__cuspidal_submodule = S > > * 1403* return self.__cuspidal_submodule > > > AssertionError: According to dimension formulas the cuspidal subspace of > "Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 > + 7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4 + 9*11^5 + 8*11^6 + 7*11^8 + 8*11^9 + > 6*11^10 + 6*11^11 + 5*11^12 + 5*11^13 + 5*11^14 + 7*11^15 + 10*11^16 + > 5*11^17 + 3*11^18 + 5*11^19 + O(11^20)], sign 0, over 11-adic Field with > capped relative precision 20" has dimension 1345499989865120018402; > however, computing it using modular symbols we obtained 0, so there is a > bug (please report!). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: which computation is right?
I bet on : all of them log is same as ln, and writing a function is a matter of taste symbolic integration of a function is function, up to a constant Dominique -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] which computation is right?
Hi, Le 20/10/2015 22:28, Sarfo a écrit : could anyone please tell me which computation evaluated in the attached file is right? Thank you. All of them? Snark on #sagemath -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] which computation is right?
could anyone please tell me which computation evaluated in the attached file is right? Thank you. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Review of the Sage for Undergraduates book:
> > http://www.computingreviews.com/review/review_review.cfm?listname=highlight&review_id=143718 > > > Nice! Note also the shout-outs to the Beezer and Judson texts. Harald, can you add this to the webpage of Sage-related reviews? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] Re: bug in cuspidal subspace of ModularSymbols with character over p-adic field
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:08 PM, wrote: > But it's working otherwise! Meaning that if I don't pass to the cuspidal > subspace, it appears to be correctly computing slopes. And it is so much > faster than working over Q(zeta_11)... Well that's interesting! Other people have worked a lot on the Modular symbols code after I wrote it, so maybe they made changes to support non-exact base fields. William > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:33:59 PM UTC-4, robert@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> The following code crashes and asks me to report this as a bug: >> >> sage: Qp = pAdicField(11) >> >> sage: G = DirichletGroup(11,Qp) >> >> sage: omega = G.0 >> >> sage: M = ModularSymbols(omega^2,2) >> >> sage: M >> >> Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 >> + 7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4 + 9*11^5 + 8*11^6 + 7*11^8 + 8*11^9 + >> 6*11^10 + 6*11^11 + 5*11^12 + 5*11^13 + 5*11^14 + 7*11^15 + 10*11^16 + >> 5*11^17 + 3*11^18 + 5*11^19 + O(11^20)], sign 0, over 11-adic Field with >> capped relative precision 20 >> >> sage: M.cuspidal_submodule() >> >> >> --- >> >> AssertionErrorTraceback (most recent call >> last) >> >> in () >> >> > 1 M.cuspidal_submodule() >> >> >> >> /Applications/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/modular/modsym/ambient.pyc >> in cuspidal_submodule(self) >> >>1399 d = self._cuspidal_submodule_dimension_formula() >> >>1400 if not d is None: >> >> -> 1401 assert d == S.dimension(), "According to >> dimension formulas the cuspidal subspace of \"%s\" has dimension %s; >> however, computing it using modular symbols we obtained %s, so there is a >> bug (please report!)."%(self, d, S.dimension()) >> >>1402 self.__cuspidal_submodule = S >> >>1403 return self.__cuspidal_submodule >> >> >> AssertionError: According to dimension formulas the cuspidal subspace of >> "Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 + >> 7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4 + 9*11^5 + 8*11^6 + 7*11^8 + 8*11^9 + >> 6*11^10 + 6*11^11 + 5*11^12 + 5*11^13 + 5*11^14 + 7*11^15 + 10*11^16 + >> 5*11^17 + 3*11^18 + 5*11^19 + O(11^20)], sign 0, over 11-adic Field with >> capped relative precision 20" has dimension 1345499989865120018402; however, >> computing it using modular symbols we obtained 0, so there is a bug (please >> report!). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- William (http://wstein.org) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Review of the Sage for Undergraduates book:
http://www.computingreviews.com/review/review_review.cfm?listname=highlight&review_id=143718 -- William (http://wstein.org) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: bug in cuspidal subspace of ModularSymbols with character over p-adic field
But it's working otherwise! Meaning that if I don't pass to the cuspidal subspace, it appears to be correctly computing slopes. And it is so much faster than working over Q(zeta_11)... On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:33:59 PM UTC-4, robert@gmail.com wrote: > > The following code crashes and asks me to report this as a bug: > > sage: Qp = pAdicField(11) > > sage: G = DirichletGroup(11,Qp) > > sage: omega = G.0 > > sage: M = ModularSymbols(omega^2,2) > > sage: M > > Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 > + 7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4 + 9*11^5 + 8*11^6 + 7*11^8 + 8*11^9 + > 6*11^10 + 6*11^11 + 5*11^12 + 5*11^13 + 5*11^14 + 7*11^15 + 10*11^16 + > 5*11^17 + 3*11^18 + 5*11^19 + O(11^20)], sign 0, over 11-adic Field with > capped relative precision 20 > > sage: M.cuspidal_submodule() > > --- > > AssertionErrorTraceback (most recent call > last) > > in () > > > 1 M.cuspidal_submodule() > > > > /Applications/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/modular/modsym/ambient.pyc > > in cuspidal_submodule(self) > > * 1399* d = self._cuspidal_submodule_dimension_formula() > > * 1400* if not d is None: > > -> 1401 assert d == S.dimension(), "According to > dimension formulas the cuspidal subspace of \"%s\" has dimension %s; > however, computing it using modular symbols we obtained %s, so there is a > bug (please report!)."%(self, d, S.dimension()) > > * 1402* self.__cuspidal_submodule = S > > * 1403* return self.__cuspidal_submodule > > > AssertionError: According to dimension formulas the cuspidal subspace of > "Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 > + 7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4 + 9*11^5 + 8*11^6 + 7*11^8 + 8*11^9 + > 6*11^10 + 6*11^11 + 5*11^12 + 5*11^13 + 5*11^14 + 7*11^15 + 10*11^16 + > 5*11^17 + 3*11^18 + 5*11^19 + O(11^20)], sign 0, over 11-adic Field with > capped relative precision 20" has dimension 1345499989865120018402; > however, computing it using modular symbols we obtained 0, so there is a > bug (please report!). > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [sage-devel] bug in cuspidal subspace of ModularSymbols with character over p-adic field
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:33 AM, wrote: > The following code crashes and asks me to report this as a bug: > > sage: Qp = pAdicField(11) > > sage: G = DirichletGroup(11,Qp) > > sage: omega = G.0 > > sage: M = ModularSymbols(omega^2,2) For what it is worth, I'm extremely surprised that the ModularSymbols constructor doesn't just immediately exit with NotImplementedError when given a p-adic (or any non-exact) field as base field on input. That's what it should do. There's no way anything will work, since generic linear algebra algorithms don't make any sense for non-exact fields, and ModularSymbols throughout use and assume that the base field is exact. So in my opinion somebody should open a ticket to make ModularSymbols(...) immediately raise NotImplementedError if the base field is not exact. - William > > sage: M > > Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 + > 7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4 + 9*11^5 + 8*11^6 + 7*11^8 + 8*11^9 + > 6*11^10 + 6*11^11 + 5*11^12 + 5*11^13 + 5*11^14 + 7*11^15 + 10*11^16 + > 5*11^17 + 3*11^18 + 5*11^19 + O(11^20)], sign 0, over 11-adic Field with > capped relative precision 20 > > sage: M.cuspidal_submodule() > > --- > > AssertionErrorTraceback (most recent call last) > > in () > > > 1 M.cuspidal_submodule() > > > /Applications/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/modular/modsym/ambient.pyc > in cuspidal_submodule(self) > >1399 d = self._cuspidal_submodule_dimension_formula() > >1400 if not d is None: > > -> 1401 assert d == S.dimension(), "According to > dimension formulas the cuspidal subspace of \"%s\" has dimension %s; > however, computing it using modular symbols we obtained %s, so there is a > bug (please report!)."%(self, d, S.dimension()) > >1402 self.__cuspidal_submodule = S > >1403 return self.__cuspidal_submodule > > > AssertionError: According to dimension formulas the cuspidal subspace of > "Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 + > 7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4 + 9*11^5 + 8*11^6 + 7*11^8 + 8*11^9 + > 6*11^10 + 6*11^11 + 5*11^12 + 5*11^13 + 5*11^14 + 7*11^15 + 10*11^16 + > 5*11^17 + 3*11^18 + 5*11^19 + O(11^20)], sign 0, over 11-adic Field with > capped relative precision 20" has dimension 1345499989865120018402; however, > computing it using modular symbols we obtained 0, so there is a bug (please > report!). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- William (http://wstein.org) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] bug in cuspidal subspace of ModularSymbols with character over p-adic field
The following code crashes and asks me to report this as a bug: sage: Qp = pAdicField(11) sage: G = DirichletGroup(11,Qp) sage: omega = G.0 sage: M = ModularSymbols(omega^2,2) sage: M Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 + 7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4 + 9*11^5 + 8*11^6 + 7*11^8 + 8*11^9 + 6*11^10 + 6*11^11 + 5*11^12 + 5*11^13 + 5*11^14 + 7*11^15 + 10*11^16 + 5*11^17 + 3*11^18 + 5*11^19 + O(11^20)], sign 0, over 11-adic Field with capped relative precision 20 sage: M.cuspidal_submodule() --- AssertionErrorTraceback (most recent call last) in () > 1 M.cuspidal_submodule() /Applications/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/modular/modsym/ambient.pyc in cuspidal_submodule(self) * 1399* d = self._cuspidal_submodule_dimension_formula() * 1400* if not d is None: -> 1401 assert d == S.dimension(), "According to dimension formulas the cuspidal subspace of \"%s\" has dimension %s; however, computing it using modular symbols we obtained %s, so there is a bug (please report!)."%(self, d, S.dimension()) * 1402* self.__cuspidal_submodule = S * 1403* return self.__cuspidal_submodule AssertionError: According to dimension formulas the cuspidal subspace of "Modular Symbols space of dimension 2 and level 11, weight 2, character [4 + 7*11 + 9*11^2 + 5*11^3 + 2*11^4 + 9*11^5 + 8*11^6 + 7*11^8 + 8*11^9 + 6*11^10 + 6*11^11 + 5*11^12 + 5*11^13 + 5*11^14 + 7*11^15 + 10*11^16 + 5*11^17 + 3*11^18 + 5*11^19 + O(11^20)], sign 0, over 11-adic Field with capped relative precision 20" has dimension 1345499989865120018402; however, computing it using modular symbols we obtained 0, so there is a bug (please report!). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] FoxySheep
Anyone know about this? Have I already posted about it? https://github.com/rljacobson/FoxySheep Looking around a bit it looks like Sage is definitely a target for this in the future. Anyway, the author is planning to give at talk at the JMM: http://jointmathematicsmeetings.org/amsmtgs/2181_abstracts/1116-e1-1434.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[sage-devel] Re: Segfault with floats on new Mac processor
Sorry for the necropost... believe it or not, this has come up again at http://ask.sagemath.org/question/30117/after-upgrade-to-69-we-obtain-sigill My guess is that whatever machine we use to compile the 10.10 binaries has some instructions not on those older chips? On Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 10:32:21 PM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote: > > From http://ask.sagemath.org/question/346/float-numbers-error > > +++ > > Same Problem: > > While running sage with gdb: > > sage: a = 2.0 sage: b = 2.5 > > Program received signal EXC_BAD_INSTRUCTION, Illegal instruction/operand. > 0x0001016e3ed9 in case1 () > > Version: sage-5.0-OSX-64bit-10.6-x86_64-Darwin OS: Mac OS X Lion 10.7.4 > (11E53) Processor : 2 x 3 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon > > > ++ > > > Note that this is NOT a Core 2 Duo as with all other such reports. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
