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

2017-10-22 Thread Simon Brandhorst
Before proceeding I do need some help please. #24031 Coercion between Matrices over orders and over the number field also coercion between Vectors over orders and over the quotient field/number field is not working. I am somewhat lost in the coercion

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

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

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,

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

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

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

2017-10-12 Thread William Stein
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

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

2017-10-12 Thread Simon Brandhorst
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. =

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

2017-10-12 Thread David Roe
I would try sage: X = V.quotient(W) sage: TestSuite(X).run() and see if there are failures. I know the implementation of FGP_Module was eventually intended for other PIDs as well, so I think it's a good idea as long as we have enough tests. David On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Simon

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

2017-10-12 Thread Simon Brandhorst
If forgot to add sage: from sage.modules.fg_pid.fgp_module import FGP_Module 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: