#15303: Coercion discovery fails to be transitive
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  nbruin             |        Owner:
           Type:  defect             |       Status:  needs_review
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-5.13
      Component:  coercion           |   Resolution:
       Keywords:                     |    Merged in:
        Authors:  Simon King         |    Reviewers:
Report Upstream:  N/A                |  Work issues:
         Branch:                     |       Commit:
  u/SimonKing/ticket/15303           |  5c0800a07bd83787e59713236e5ccc8dde434760
   Dependencies:  #14711             |     Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by SimonKing):

 * status:  needs_work => needs_review
 * work_issues:  Implement backtracking properly =>


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:65 nbruin]:
 > Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be a very good heuristic because
 it's not stable: `_coerce_map_from_` is supposed to do some backtracking
 on its own, so if `A._coerce_map_from(B)` happens to consider another
 parent `C` that coerces into `A` and find that
 `C._coerce_map_from(B)==True`, it would return an explicit composite map,
 with the generic conversion from B into C as one of the components. This
 map would receive preference, but this map should be even less attractive
 because on top of a generic conversion, it is also composed with some
 other map.

 Why should `A._coerce_map_from(B)` return anything? Aren't you rather
 talking about `A.discover_coerce_map_from(B)` that recurses to C and thus
 calls `C._coerce_map_from_(B)`?

 In any case, I have now pushed my recent commits. I did solve the
 recursion error with embedded number field morphism (solution: Raise a
 `TypeError` if one of the number fields actually is not embedded), and
 with this change
 {{{
 sage: L.<i> = NumberField(x^2 + 1)
 sage: K = NumberField(L(i/2+3).minpoly(), names=('i0',),
 embedding=L(i/2+3))
 }}}
 works like a charm. I don't know yet whether it results in other problems,
 but in any case I'll  revert to "needs review" now.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15303#comment:67>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to