#6441: [with patch, needs work] Charpoly (plus adjoint and det)
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Reporter: spancratz | Owner: somebody
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-4.1.2
Component: linear algebra | Keywords: charpoly, division-free
Reviewer: | Author: Sebastian Pancratz
Merged: |
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Comment(by rbeezer):
Hi Sebastian,
I've been using this routine to explore some characteristic polynomials
with symbolic coefficients that Chris Godsil is interested in for graph
theory. Its great to have this efficient routine available. It also
seems that this latest version is about twice as fast as the first one, so
the revisions here are providing a real speed-up.
1. Documentation warnings: I only got two warnings from matrix2.pyx. In
the docstring for {{{adjoint()}}} the description of {{{N}}} as input has
its second line aligned relative to the second dash, where it is the text
off the first dash that sets the indent location. In the docstring for
{{{charpoly()}}} the line that begins {{{If an algorithm is specified
explicitly,...}}} needs to be pulled left to align properly.
The warnings you get when you build the documentation tell you the file
and the method where it happens, then there is a line number, which is
relative to the start of that particular docstring and give the location
(roughly - plus/minus a line?). If you still have a third warning, maybe
you can locate it this way to help figure out the problem (or post the
location here).
2. Patch failures: I had two parts of the patch which failed. One was
the spelling of "determinant" in {{{matrix_space.py}}} which is no big
deal, the other was the first portion of the {{{determinant()}}}
definition, which is important, and I made that change by hand so I could
test the patch. Is this patch relative to 4.1.1 now? If not, it should
be "rebased" to 4.1.1 which I can explain how to do if you are not sure
how (or what that is).
3. Doctest failure: I'm getting one doctest failure. In
{{{matrix_space.py}}} the test {{{tinv(QQ, sparse=False)}}} seems to be
throwing an {{{ArithmeticError}}} rather than a {{{ValueError}}} for a
non-square matrix. Presumably this should be easy for you to fix, since
there are several other fixes like this already.
4. Patch name: the file for the patch should eventually be named
{{{trac_6441_description.patch}}} where "description" is something really
simple like "df_charpoly"
5. Ring and Field checks: Yes, lets go through the exercise of seeing
what sage-devel says about the {{{is_certainly_xx}}} methods and go with
the consensus there.
6. Overconvergent Modular Forms: I know nothing about these, or the need
to use the "hessenberg" algorithm, so we can defer to David Loeffler's
judgment on this one?
Almost there!
Rob
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6441#comment:17>
Sage <http://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 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
