Re: [sage-devel] python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread 'Julien Puydt' via sage-devel 
Hi,

Le 13/10/2017 à 17:56, Frédéric Chapoton a écrit :
> Cool, no ? Or maybe nobody cares ?

Extremely cool!

> Many things are still not working. The cmp problem has been much
> reduced, but still not fully fixed. On our way is a large-scale unicode
> problem, and maybe another large scale hash problem.

Why are unicode and hash problems?

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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread Dima Pasechnik 
Given http://www.python3statement.org/ lists a number of crucial Sage 
dependencies to drop py2 on or before 2020, there is little choice. :-)
In fact, I think we should get Sage added to that list too, and get to work 
on py3 in the earnest.



On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 4:56:11 PM UTC+1, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have reached this point with the ugly python3 experimental branch 
> "public/python3-experiment-8.1.b7":
>
>
> ┌┐
> │ SageMath version 8.1.beta7, Release Date: 2017-10-03   │
> │ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface.│
> │ Type "help()" for help.│
> └┘
> ┏┓
> ┃ Warning: this is a prerelease version, and it may be unstable. ┃
> ┗┛
> sage: 3*3
> 9
> sage: parent(_)
> Integer Ring
>
>
> Cool, no ? Or maybe nobody cares ?
>
> Many things are still not working. The cmp problem has been much reduced, 
> but still not fully fixed. On our way is a large-scale unicode problem, and 
> maybe another large scale hash problem.
>
> Frederic
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread Jori Mäntysalo 

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:


Cool, no ? Or maybe nobody cares ?


Cool, yes!

--
Jori Mäntysalo

Re: [sage-devel] Issues installing the optional "libhomfly" package

2017-10-13 Thread Dima Pasechnik 
It's fixed for OSX now, it's the packaging (and the necessary for OSX, as 
it turns out, update to Boehm GC package).
https://github.com/dimpase/libhomfly


On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 10:29:46 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> Now it's down to doing something with fmemopen call there, that is not 
> portable to OSX (there is no fmemopen on OSX!)
>
> How did this package get into Sage, it surely never ever worked on OSX...
>
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:27:07 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> I can reproduce this linking error on OSX; I've opened #24015 
>>  to track this error.
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 10:31:16 AM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Jesse H  wrote: 
>>> > Greetings, 
>>> > 
>>> > I have been trying to use the function "homfly_polynomial()" from the 
>>> Link 
>>> > package in Sage, but it requires an optional package "libhomfly": 
>>> > http://files.sagemath.org/spkg/upstream/libhomfly/index.html. 
>>> > 
>>> > Unfortunately, when I try to install libhomfly ("sage -i libhomfly") 
>>> the 
>>> > build always fails (see attached log file). 
>>> > 
>>> > One of the dependencies for libhomfly is Boehm GC, but when I try to 
>>> install 
>>> > this package ("sage -i boehm_gc"), it is not even found on Sage's list 
>>> of 
>>> > optional packages (even though it's displayed on the 
>>> > website:
>>> http://mirrors-usa.go-parts.com/sage/sagemath/spkg/upstream/boehm_gc/index.html).
>>>  
>>>
>>> > I'm not sure if this is indeed the issue, but it's just something I 
>>> came 
>>> > across. 
>>> > 
>>> > For what it's worth, I'm running SageMath 8.0 and MacOS 10.12.6 on a 
>>> mid 
>>> > 2012 MacBook Pro with a 2.3 GHz i7 processor and 8GB RAM. 
>>> > 
>>> > Any help is much appreciated. 
>>>
>>> This looks like a bug in libhomfly.  Just looking at the sources it 
>>> has some messy handling of extern variable declarations vs. 
>>> definitions, and many global variables are actually being defined in 
>>> multiple modules.  I haven't run into this problem myself building 
>>> libhomfly but maybe my compiler is more forgiving.  Regardless it 
>>> definitely looks wrong to me.  I could see if I can reproduce on OSX 
>>> now that I have shiny new access to a big OSX machine :) 
>>>
>>> Erik 
>>>
>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread Nils Bruin 
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:56:11 PM UTC+2, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have reached this point with the ugly python3 experimental branch 
> "public/python3-experiment-8.1.b7":
>
>
> ┌┐
> │ SageMath version 8.1.beta7, Release Date: 2017-10-03   │
> │ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface.│
> │ Type "help()" for help.│
> └┘
> ┏┓
> ┃ Warning: this is a prerelease version, and it may be unstable. ┃
> ┗┛
> sage: 3*3
> 9
> sage: parent(_)
> Integer Ring
>
>
> Cool, no ? Or maybe nobody cares ?
>
> It's definitely the former and not the latter. This is very cool and a lot 
of people care (or will, or should).
Once this branch gains traction, I imagine you may have to edit the 
"warning" banner and replace "may be" with "is" for a while.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread John H Palmieri 
That's great! Thank you for all of your work on this.

  John


On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:56:11 AM UTC-7, Frédéric Chapoton wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have reached this point with the ugly python3 experimental branch 
> "public/python3-experiment-8.1.b7":
>
>
> ┌┐
> │ SageMath version 8.1.beta7, Release Date: 2017-10-03   │
> │ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface.│
> │ Type "help()" for help.│
> └┘
> ┏┓
> ┃ Warning: this is a prerelease version, and it may be unstable. ┃
> ┗┛
> sage: 3*3
> 9
> sage: parent(_)
> Integer Ring
>
>
> Cool, no ? Or maybe nobody cares ?
>
> Many things are still not working. The cmp problem has been much reduced, 
> but still not fully fixed. On our way is a large-scale unicode problem, and 
> maybe another large scale hash problem.
>
> Frederic
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] python3 status

2017-10-13 Thread Frédéric Chapoton 
Hello,

I have reached this point with the ugly python3 experimental branch 
"public/python3-experiment-8.1.b7":


┌┐
│ SageMath version 8.1.beta7, Release Date: 2017-10-03   │
│ Type "notebook()" for the browser-based notebook interface.│
│ Type "help()" for help.│
└┘
┏┓
┃ Warning: this is a prerelease version, and it may be unstable. ┃
┗┛
sage: 3*3
9
sage: parent(_)
Integer Ring


Cool, no ? Or maybe nobody cares ?

Many things are still not working. The cmp problem has been much reduced, 
but still not fully fixed. On our way is a large-scale unicode problem, and 
maybe another large scale hash problem.

Frederic

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Allow quotient modules for PIDs

2017-10-13 Thread Simon Brandhorst 
{{{
sage: L. = CyclotomicField(5)
sage: OL= L.ring_of_integers()
sage: OL
Maximal Order in Cyclotomic Field of order 5 and degree 4
sage: M=Matrix(OL,2,[1-a,0,a,1+a])
sage: a.parent()
Cyclotomic Field of order 5 and degree 4
sage: a*M
---

TypeError: unsupported operand parent(s) for *: 'Cyclotomic Field of order 
5 and degree 4' and 'Full MatrixSpace of 2 by 2 dense matrices over Maximal 
Order in Cyclotomic Field of order 5 and degree 4'
sage: M=Matrix(L,2,[1-a,0,a,1+a])
sage: a*M
[-a^2 + a0]
[ a^2  a^2 + a]
}}}

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:59:13 AM UTC+2, John Cremona wrote:
>
> On 13 October 2017 at 08:37, Simon Brandhorst  > wrote: 
> > The testsuite runs now. A long list of rings would be helpful. 
> > 
> > Some Pids i care about: 
> > ZZ[\zeta_n] of degree <= 20, (they are in fact euclidean) 
> > QQ(\sqrt(d)) of class number one. 
> > F[x] for F any field. (probably these are not really working well 
> enough) 
>
> How about a PID whcih is *not* Euclidean such as Z[a] with a^2+a+5=0 
> (i.e. ring if integers in Q(sqrt(-19))? 
>
> > 
> > More ideas? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:14:36 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote: 
> >> 
> >> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24027 
> >> 
> >> In order to do good testing. Do we have a nice list of PIDs? 
> >> 
> >> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:07:00 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst 
> wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> Yep, adding doc tests over other rings is the minimum requirement.  I 
> can 
> >>> do that. 
> >>> Yet I would print a warning message for some time. I would expect some 
> >>> bugs to be leftover in any case. 
> >>> -- Simon 
> >>> 
> >>> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:35:14 PM UTC+2, William wrote: 
>  
>  Hi, 
>  
>  I'm really happy to hear people are giving this code some attention! 
>  
>  I wrote the original FGP package.  At the time, there was no support 
> for 
>  computing HNF or anything else except for ZZ, so I couldn't even test 
> or try 
>  the algorithms there.  I **might** have made some assumptions about 
> the base 
>  ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I 
> don't 
>  remember -- it was a long time ago. 
>  
>  The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF 
> was 
>  added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   
> I hope 
>  somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I 
> would go 
>  through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the 
> existing tests 
>  over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely, definitely would 
> NOT 
>  even consider just enabling this functionality with a warning 
> message, and 
>  crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion below.  I 
> strongly 
>  object to that.   I endorse: 
>  
>   - enable the functionality 
>   - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works. 
>   - then release it publicly. 
>  
>  If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it 
> doesn't 
>  work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we 
> shouldn't have 
>  released it in the first place. 
>  
>  Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making 
> this 
>  more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my 
> original 
>  FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago... 
>  
>   -- William 
>  
>  On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst  
>  wrote: 
> > 
> > O.K. I will do that. Even if we do not have enough tests. Maybe we 
> can 
> > allow it and print some 
> > "This code is still experimental" warning. After all it will only 
> get 
> > really stable is people use it a lot. 
> > 
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 5:06:20 PM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst 
> > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> sage: L. = NumberField(x^2 - x + 2) 
> >> sage: OL = L.ring_of_integers() 
> >> sage: V = OL**3; W = V.span([[0,w,0], [1,0,1-w]], OL) 
> >> sage: FGP_Module(V,W) 
> >> This works 
> >> 
> >> sage: V.quotient(W) 
> >> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than 
> fields 
> >> or ZZ is not fully implemented 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me. 
> >> 
> >> Objections? 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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+...@googlegroups.com. 
> > To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com. 
> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. 
> > For more options, visit

[sage-devel] Re: Graphs: Hamiltonian path vs. cycle

2017-10-13 Thread Jori Mäntysalo 

More generally relating on this...

I think that currently we have

1) Deterministic function to find the longest path of a graph.
2) "Usually fast" randomized function to find the longest path.

Is this true? And what about functions to find longest cycle or to check 
if the graph is Hamiltonian? A function to list all Hamiltonian 
paths/cycles?


Anyways, from 1 we can make a function to use for 
is_hamiltonian(path=True), and with 2 we could have 
is_hamiltonian(path=True, algorithm='randomized') or so.


Actually we have hamiltonian_cycle(algorithm='backtrack') that uses 
randomized algorithm. It feels slightly odd -- to me "backtrack" sounds 
like a deterministic function. And hamiltonian_path(algorithm='backtrack') 
tries to find longest path by randomized algorithm, and returns what it 
found -- i.e. not necessarily a Hamiltonian path.


I think it would be natural to have

is_hamiltonian(path=False, algorithm=None, certificate=False)

so that path=True would check if the graph is semi-Hamiltonian, 
algorithm='randomized' would use the randomized algorithm which could give 
false negatives, and certificate=True would give either (True, Cycle/Path) 
or (False, None) as output.


But I am not an expert, so maybe graph theorists have something to say 
about this.


--
Jori Mäntysalo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: patchbot server down

2017-10-13 Thread Erik Bray 
I'm sorry you spent any time on it...  Like I said, I was working on
it :)  Fixed now.

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Frédéric Chapoton
 wrote:
> I have failed to find the issue..
>
>
> Le vendredi 13 octobre 2017 10:29:03 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit :
>>
>> https://patchbot.sagemath.org/ gives an Internal Server Error right
>> now.  Some pages work, such as the build pages for individual tickets,
>> but others are just screaming.
>>
>> I'll look into it.
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] Re: patchbot server down

2017-10-13 Thread Frédéric Chapoton 
I have failed to find the issue..

Le vendredi 13 octobre 2017 10:29:03 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit :
>
> https://patchbot.sagemath.org/ gives an Internal Server Error right 
> now.  Some pages work, such as the build pages for individual tickets, 
> but others are just screaming. 
>
> I'll look into it. 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Allow quotient modules for PIDs

2017-10-13 Thread John Cremona 
On 13 October 2017 at 08:37, Simon Brandhorst  wrote:
> The testsuite runs now. A long list of rings would be helpful.
>
> Some Pids i care about:
> ZZ[\zeta_n] of degree <= 20, (they are in fact euclidean)
> QQ(\sqrt(d)) of class number one.
> F[x] for F any field. (probably these are not really working well enough)

How about a PID whcih is *not* Euclidean such as Z[a] with a^2+a+5=0
(i.e. ring if integers in Q(sqrt(-19))?

>
> More ideas?
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:14:36 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
>>
>> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24027
>>
>> In order to do good testing. Do we have a nice list of PIDs?
>>
>> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:07:00 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
>>>
>>> Yep, adding doc tests over other rings is the minimum requirement.  I can
>>> do that.
>>> Yet I would print a warning message for some time. I would expect some
>>> bugs to be leftover in any case.
>>> -- Simon
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:35:14 PM UTC+2, William wrote:

 Hi,

 I'm really happy to hear people are giving this code some attention!

 I wrote the original FGP package.  At the time, there was no support for
 computing HNF or anything else except for ZZ, so I couldn't even test or 
 try
 the algorithms there.  I **might** have made some assumptions about the 
 base
 ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I don't
 remember -- it was a long time ago.

 The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF was
 added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   I 
 hope
 somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I would go
 through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the existing 
 tests
 over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely, definitely would NOT
 even consider just enabling this functionality with a warning message, and
 crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion below.  I strongly
 object to that.   I endorse:

  - enable the functionality
  - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works.
  - then release it publicly.

 If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it doesn't
 work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we shouldn't 
 have
 released it in the first place.

 Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making this
 more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my original
 FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago...

  -- William

 On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst 
 wrote:
>
> O.K. I will do that. Even if we do not have enough tests. Maybe we can
> allow it and print some
> "This code is still experimental" warning. After all it will only get
> really stable is people use it a lot.
>
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 5:06:20 PM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst
> wrote:
>>
>> sage: L. = NumberField(x^2 - x + 2)
>> sage: OL = L.ring_of_integers()
>> sage: V = OL**3; W = V.span([[0,w,0], [1,0,1-w]], OL)
>> sage: FGP_Module(V,W)
>> This works
>>
>> sage: V.quotient(W)
>> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields
>> or ZZ is not fully implemented
>>
>>
>> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me.
>>
>> Objections?
>
> --
> 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+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 -- William Stein
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sage-devel] patchbot server down

2017-10-13 Thread Erik Bray 
https://patchbot.sagemath.org/ gives an Internal Server Error right
now.  Some pages work, such as the build pages for individual tickets,
but others are just screaming.

I'll look into it.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Allow quotient modules for PIDs

2017-10-13 Thread Simon Brandhorst 
The testsuite runs now. A long list of rings would be helpful. 

Some Pids i care about:
ZZ[\zeta_n] of degree <= 20, (they are in fact euclidean)
QQ(\sqrt(d)) of class number one.
F[x] for F any field. (probably these are not really working well enough)

More ideas? 



On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:14:36 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
>
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24027
>
> In order to do good testing. Do we have a nice list of PIDs?
>
> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:07:00 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
>>
>> Yep, adding doc tests over other rings is the minimum requirement.  I can 
>> do that.
>> Yet I would print a warning message for some time. I would expect some 
>> bugs to be leftover in any case. 
>> -- Simon
>>
>> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:35:14 PM UTC+2, William wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm really happy to hear people are giving this code some attention!
>>>
>>> I wrote the original FGP package.  At the time, there was no support for 
>>> computing HNF or anything else except for ZZ, so I couldn't even test or 
>>> try the algorithms there.  I **might** have made some assumptions about the 
>>> base ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I 
>>> don't remember -- it was a long time ago.  
>>>
>>> The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF was 
>>> added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   I 
>>> hope somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I 
>>> would go through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the 
>>> existing tests over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely, 
>>> definitely would NOT even consider just enabling this functionality with a 
>>> warning message, and crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion 
>>> below.  I strongly object to that.   I endorse:
>>>
>>>  - enable the functionality 
>>>  - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works.  
>>>  - then release it publicly.
>>>
>>> If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it doesn't 
>>> work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we shouldn't 
>>> have released it in the first place.  
>>>
>>> Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making this 
>>> more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my original 
>>> FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago...
>>>
>>>  -- William
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 O.K. I will do that. Even if we do not have enough tests. Maybe we can 
 allow it and print some
 "This code is still experimental" warning. After all it will only get 
 really stable is people use it a lot. 

 On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 5:06:20 PM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst 
 wrote:

> sage: L. = NumberField(x^2 - x + 2)
> sage: OL = L.ring_of_integers()
> sage: V = OL**3; W = V.span([[0,w,0], [1,0,1-w]], OL)
> sage: FGP_Module(V,W)
> This works
>
> sage: V.quotient(W)
> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields 
> or ZZ is not fully implemented
>
>
> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me. 
>
> Objections?
>
 -- 
 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+...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>> -- 
>>> -- William Stein
>>>
>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Allow quotient modules for PIDs

2017-10-13 Thread Simon Brandhorst 
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24027

In order to do good testing. Do we have a nice list of PIDs?

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:07:00 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
>
> Yep, adding doc tests over other rings is the minimum requirement.  I can 
> do that.
> Yet I would print a warning message for some time. I would expect some 
> bugs to be leftover in any case. 
> -- Simon
>
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:35:14 PM UTC+2, William wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm really happy to hear people are giving this code some attention!
>>
>> I wrote the original FGP package.  At the time, there was no support for 
>> computing HNF or anything else except for ZZ, so I couldn't even test or 
>> try the algorithms there.  I **might** have made some assumptions about the 
>> base ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I 
>> don't remember -- it was a long time ago.  
>>
>> The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF was 
>> added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   I 
>> hope somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I 
>> would go through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the 
>> existing tests over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely, 
>> definitely would NOT even consider just enabling this functionality with a 
>> warning message, and crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion 
>> below.  I strongly object to that.   I endorse:
>>
>>  - enable the functionality 
>>  - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works.  
>>  - then release it publicly.
>>
>> If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it doesn't 
>> work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we shouldn't 
>> have released it in the first place.  
>>
>> Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making this 
>> more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my original 
>> FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago...
>>
>>  -- William
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst  wrote:
>>
>>> O.K. I will do that. Even if we do not have enough tests. Maybe we can 
>>> allow it and print some
>>> "This code is still experimental" warning. After all it will only get 
>>> really stable is people use it a lot. 
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 5:06:20 PM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 sage: L. = NumberField(x^2 - x + 2)
 sage: OL = L.ring_of_integers()
 sage: V = OL**3; W = V.span([[0,w,0], [1,0,1-w]], OL)
 sage: FGP_Module(V,W)
 This works

 sage: V.quotient(W)
 NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields 
 or ZZ is not fully implemented


 Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me. 

 Objections?

>>> -- 
>>> 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+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> -- 
>> -- William Stein
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Allow quotient modules for PIDs

2017-10-13 Thread Simon Brandhorst 
Yep, adding doc tests over other rings is the minimum requirement.  I can 
do that.
Yet I would print a warning message for some time. I would expect some bugs 
to be leftover in any case. 
-- Simon

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:35:14 PM UTC+2, William wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm really happy to hear people are giving this code some attention!
>
> I wrote the original FGP package.  At the time, there was no support for 
> computing HNF or anything else except for ZZ, so I couldn't even test or 
> try the algorithms there.  I **might** have made some assumptions about the 
> base ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I 
> don't remember -- it was a long time ago.  
>
> The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF was 
> added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   I 
> hope somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I 
> would go through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the 
> existing tests over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely, 
> definitely would NOT even consider just enabling this functionality with a 
> warning message, and crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion 
> below.  I strongly object to that.   I endorse:
>
>  - enable the functionality 
>  - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works.  
>  - then release it publicly.
>
> If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it doesn't 
> work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we shouldn't 
> have released it in the first place.  
>
> Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making this 
> more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my original 
> FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago...
>
>  -- William
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst  > wrote:
>
>> O.K. I will do that. Even if we do not have enough tests. Maybe we can 
>> allow it and print some
>> "This code is still experimental" warning. After all it will only get 
>> really stable is people use it a lot. 
>>
>> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 5:06:20 PM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
>>
>>> sage: L. = NumberField(x^2 - x + 2)
>>> sage: OL = L.ring_of_integers()
>>> sage: V = OL**3; W = V.span([[0,w,0], [1,0,1-w]], OL)
>>> sage: FGP_Module(V,W)
>>> This works
>>>
>>> sage: V.quotient(W)
>>> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields 
>>> or ZZ is not fully implemented
>>>
>>>
>>> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me. 
>>>
>>> Objections?
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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+...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> -- 
> -- William Stein
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.