#9055: Moving/cleaning enumeration functions for points on schemes
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: cturner | Owner: AlexGhitza
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: algebraic geometry | Keywords: rational points enumeration
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Changes (by cturner):
* cc: wdj (added)
* status: needs_work => needs_review
Comment:
1) I (believe I have) fixed the issues flagged by novoselt. Thank you
novoselt for your help in pointing them out.
2) I have improved the code so that it can take either a scheme or an
abstract set of rational points of a scheme as input.
THERE IS A KNOWN DOCTEST FAIL with this patch;
The following tests
failed:[[BR]][[BR]]sage/coding/code_constructions.py[[BR]]sage/coding/linear_code.py
[[BR]]sage/coding/decoder.py[[BR]]doc/en/constructions/linear_codes.rst
I think this is because the coding modules use the
enum_projective_finite_field function. This causes the same problem as
point 4. of my previous comment (circa 8th June). The new versions of each
of these functions sort points but the old ones did not. I suspect that
the coding functions depend on the order of the output of
enum_projective_finite_field and so fail now that that order has changed.
I am not proficient with codes and do not feel able to fix this issue. I
wonder if someone who does understand coding could help and fix this? I CC
David Joyner, who originally wrote these modules. Perhaps it is simply a
matter of adapting the doctests to take into account the new ordering. I
believe that this is the right way round; that the ordering of the output
of the "enum" functions should not depend on the algorithm used.
Because of this, I suggest that the patch be reviewed ignoring these
problems with coding modules, and in the meantime a coding person might be
able to help solve the problems.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9055#comment:5>
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 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.
