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 
model and do not know where to start here. 


As for the FGP_Module class, or in general:


Often matrices/vectors/scalar over the order and over the quotient field 
are multiplied.

Should one try to push as much as possible into the quotient field from the 
beginning? Or is it O.K. to rely on the coercion model. It is certainly 
more convenient to rely on coercion.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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
---

TypeError: unsupported operand parent(s) for *: 'Cyclotomic Field of order 
5 and degree 4' and 'Full MatrixSpace of 2 by 2 dense matrices over Maximal 
Order in Cyclotomic Field of order 5 and degree 4'
sage: M=Matrix(L,2,[1-a,0,a,1+a])
sage: a*M
[-a^2 + a0]
[ a^2  a^2 + a]
}}}

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:59:13 AM UTC+2, John Cremona wrote:
>
> 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 these are not really working well 
> enough) 
>
> How about a PID whcih is *not* Euclidean such as Z[a] with a^2+a+5=0 
> (i.e. ring if integers in Q(sqrt(-19))? 
>
> > 
> > More ideas? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:14:36 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 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 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 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 base 
>  ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I 
> don't 
>  remember -- it was a long time ago. 
>  
>  The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF 
> was 
>  added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   
> I hope 
>  somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I 
> would go 
>  through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the 
> existing tests 
>  over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely, definitely would 
> NOT 
>  even consider just enabling this functionality with a warning 
> message, and 
>  crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion below.  I 
> strongly 
>  object to that.   I endorse: 
>  
>   - enable the functionality 
>   - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works. 
>   - then release it publicly. 
>  
>  If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it 
> doesn't 
>  work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we 
> shouldn't have 
>  released it in the first place. 
>  
>  Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making 
> this 
>  more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my 
> original 
>  FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago... 
>  
>   -- William 
>  
>  On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst  
>  wrote: 
> > 
> > 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. = 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: FGP_Module(V,W) 
> >> This works 
> >> 
> >> sage: V.quotient(W) 
> >> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than 
> fields 
> >> or ZZ is not fully implemented 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me. 
> >> 
> >> Objections? 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> > Groups "sage-devel" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> send 
> > an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. 
> > To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com. 
> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. 
> > For more options, visit

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 these are not really working well enough)

How about a PID whcih is *not* Euclidean such as Z[a] with a^2+a+5=0
(i.e. ring if integers in Q(sqrt(-19))?

>
> More ideas?
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:14:36 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
>>
>> 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 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 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 
 base
 ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I don't
 remember -- it was a long time ago.

 The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF was
 added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   I 
 hope
 somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I would go
 through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the existing 
 tests
 over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely, definitely would NOT
 even consider just enabling this functionality with a warning message, and
 crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion below.  I strongly
 object to that.   I endorse:

  - enable the functionality
  - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works.
  - then release it publicly.

 If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it doesn't
 work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we shouldn't 
 have
 released it in the first place.

 Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making this
 more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my original
 FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago...

  -- William

 On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst 
 wrote:
>
> 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. = 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: FGP_Module(V,W)
>> This works
>>
>> sage: V.quotient(W)
>> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields
>> or ZZ is not fully implemented
>>
>>
>> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me.
>>
>> Objections?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 -- William Stein
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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, 2017 at 9:14:36 AM UTC+2, Simon Brandhorst wrote:
>
> 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 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 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 
>>> base ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I 
>>> don't remember -- it was a long time ago.  
>>>
>>> The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF was 
>>> added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   I 
>>> hope somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I 
>>> would go through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the 
>>> existing tests over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely, 
>>> definitely would NOT even consider just enabling this functionality with a 
>>> warning message, and crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion 
>>> below.  I strongly object to that.   I endorse:
>>>
>>>  - enable the functionality 
>>>  - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works.  
>>>  - then release it publicly.
>>>
>>> If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it doesn't 
>>> work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we shouldn't 
>>> have released it in the first place.  
>>>
>>> Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making this 
>>> more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my original 
>>> FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago...
>>>
>>>  -- William
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 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. = 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: FGP_Module(V,W)
> This works
>
> sage: V.quotient(W)
> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields 
> or ZZ is not fully implemented
>
>
> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me. 
>
> Objections?
>
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups "sage-devel" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
 an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>> -- 
>>> -- William Stein
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 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 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 
>> base ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I 
>> don't remember -- it was a long time ago.  
>>
>> The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF was 
>> added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   I 
>> hope somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I 
>> would go through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the 
>> existing tests over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely, 
>> definitely would NOT even consider just enabling this functionality with a 
>> warning message, and crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion 
>> below.  I strongly object to that.   I endorse:
>>
>>  - enable the functionality 
>>  - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works.  
>>  - then release it publicly.
>>
>> If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it doesn't 
>> work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we shouldn't 
>> have released it in the first place.  
>>
>> Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making this 
>> more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my original 
>> FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago...
>>
>>  -- William
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst  wrote:
>>
>>> 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. = 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: FGP_Module(V,W)
 This works

 sage: V.quotient(W)
 NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields 
 or ZZ is not fully implemented


 Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me. 

 Objections?

>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> -- 
>> -- William Stein
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 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 
> base ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I 
> don't remember -- it was a long time ago.  
>
> The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF was 
> added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   I 
> hope somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I 
> would go through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the 
> existing tests over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely, 
> definitely would NOT even consider just enabling this functionality with a 
> warning message, and crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion 
> below.  I strongly object to that.   I endorse:
>
>  - enable the functionality 
>  - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works.  
>  - then release it publicly.
>
> If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it doesn't 
> work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we shouldn't 
> have released it in the first place.  
>
> Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making this 
> more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my original 
> FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago...
>
>  -- William
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst  > wrote:
>
>> 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. = 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: FGP_Module(V,W)
>>> This works
>>>
>>> sage: V.quotient(W)
>>> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields 
>>> or ZZ is not fully implemented
>>>
>>>
>>> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me. 
>>>
>>> Objections?
>>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> -- 
> -- William Stein
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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
base ring being ZZ for simplicity due to this, but I hope I didn't.  I
don't remember -- it was a long time ago.

The only reason this hasn't moved forward after more support for HNF was
added for other PIDs is that I'm busy with other things these days.   I
hope somebody else will take over.If I was working on this code, I
would go through the module and add a ton of doctests analogous to the
existing tests over ZZ, but over some other PID's.   I definitely,
definitely would NOT even consider just enabling this functionality with a
warning message, and crossing my fingers like Simon seems to be suggestion
below.  I strongly object to that.   I endorse:

 - enable the functionality
 - write a bunch of new doctests showing how (and that) it works.
 - then release it publicly.

If it does work, doing the above is maybe 1 day of work.  If it doesn't
work, so the above is much harder than 1 day of work, then we shouldn't
have released it in the first place.

Again, Simon, I'm really happy you're looking into this and making this
more general functionality available.  I was pretty happy with my original
FGP implementation, which was a lot of work one summer years ago...

 -- William

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:48 AM Simon Brandhorst  wrote:

> 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. = 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: FGP_Module(V,W)
>> This works
>>
>> sage: V.quotient(W)
>> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields or
>> ZZ is not fully implemented
>>
>>
>> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me.
>>
>> Objections?
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-- 
-- William Stein

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[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. = 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: FGP_Module(V,W)
> This works
>
> sage: V.quotient(W)
> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields or 
> ZZ is not fully implemented
>
>
> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me. 
>
> Objections?
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 Brandhorst 
wrote:

> 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: FGP_Module(V,W)
>> This works
>>
>> sage: V.quotient(W)
>> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields or
>> ZZ is not fully implemented
>>
>>
>> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me.
>>
>> Objections?
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[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: FGP_Module(V,W)
> This works
>
> sage: V.quotient(W)
> NotImplementedError: quotients of modules over rings other than fields or 
> ZZ is not fully implemented
>
>
> Well FGP looks pretty implemented to me. 
>
> Objections?
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.