#5765: [with patch, needs work] improve doctest coverage for
schemes/generic/algebraic_scheme.py
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Reporter: AlexGhitza | Owner: AlexGhitza
Type: defect | Status: assigned
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-3.4.2
Component: algebraic geometry | Keywords: doctest algebraic scheme
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Comment(by AlexGhitza):
Replying to [comment:15 cremona]:
> While I am waiting for 3.4.2.alpha0 to build (before which I cannot test
the new patch!) I want to raise an issue.
>
> I agree that the one and only function in ell_field was redundant, since
the general machinery for checking that a point lies on a scheme can do
what it does. So I am happy with that.
>
> But do we really want to eliminate the *class* EllipticCurve_field?
The design seems to be as follows. In principle one can define elliptic
curves over general base schemes. The most important special case is
elliptic curves over a field. At the moment Sage has essentially no
support for an elliptic curve over a non-field, but that might change. So
at present, all the generic stuff in ell_generic is quite likely to only
work for curves over fields anyway, and that is where anything relevant to
general fields is put. Might it not be a better plan to look carefully
through ell_generic, see if there is anything there which should really
only be for curves over fields, and move that to ell_field (keeping the
EllipticCurve_field class)?
>
> Just a thought -- at least a move such as the one this patch does
deserves a little more public debate ;)
Very good, that's why I wanted to hear others say something about it.
I don't feel strongly either way. From what I can see,
{{{EllipticCurve_generic}}} has stuff that makes sense for elliptic curves
over rings. I agree that it would be good to sift through that and see if
there are methods that really only work over fields, and move these to
{{{ell_field.py}}}.
In the meantime, I'll modify the patch so that it just removes
{{{_check_satisfies_equations}}} and leaves only {{{pass}}} in the
definition of the class {{{EllipticCurve_field}}}.
I really need sleep now, but I'll have a corrected patch up in the
morning.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5765#comment:16>
Sage <http://sagemath.org/>
Sage - Open Source Mathematical Software: Building the Car Instead of
Reinventing the Wheel
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
