Coercions and basic arithmetic for complex balls #19063

mezzarobba · 2015-08-20T16:46:58Z

Implement field operations, basic complex number and ball methods (abs arg, conjugate, mid, rad...), and some conversions and coercions for complex balls. Also make a few changes to real balls for consistency.

Follow-up tickets: #19152, #19082.

Depends on #18546

CC: @cheuberg

Component: numerical

Keywords: arb

Author: Marc Mezzarobba, Clemens Heuberger

Branch/Commit: fa41787

Reviewer: Clemens Heuberger, Marc Mezzarobba

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19063

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

mezzarobba · 2015-08-20T16:47:41Z

Branch: u/mmezzarobba/19063-acb

mezzarobba · 2015-08-20T16:47:41Z

Commit: 8732ecb

sagetrac-git · 2015-08-25T07:18:24Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. Last 10 new commits:

`9524687`	`ComplexBallField: implement some_elements()`
`ad62199`	`Fix RealBall.mid(), implement ComplexBall.{mid(),squash()}`
`c513c70`	`ComplexBall: round(), accuracy(), trim()`
`f9e13d6`	`ComplexBall: conversions to ZZ, RR, RIF, CC, CIF`
`4a7b5c4`	`ComplexBallField: faster access to real field`
`b4e82aa`	`{Real,Complex}Ball: implement conversions to QQ`
`5e1cbda`	`ComplexBall: containment and overlapping predicates`
`d44c1b1`	`ComplexBall: abs(), arg()`
`62af563`	`RealBall: implement abs()`
`448bf24`	`{Real,Complex}Ball: implement {above,below}_abs()`

sagetrac-git · 2015-08-25T07:18:24Z

Changed commit from 8732ecb to 448bf24

mezzarobba · 2015-08-25T07:26:39Z

Changed keywords from none to arb

mezzarobba · 2015-08-25T07:26:39Z

Author: Marc Mezzarobba

cheuberg · 2015-09-04T09:33:44Z

comment:6

I started reviewing this and just a few first comments ...

SEEALSO block at the beginning of complex_ball_acb.html: show human readable names of the modules instead of sage.rings....
ComplexBallField.construction(): one-sentence-description: Replace "Returns" by "Return" (see developper guide)
ComplexBallField.gen(), .gens(), .ngens(): Missing one-sentence-description

sagetrac-git · 2015-09-04T11:40:07Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

`0196f69`	`ComplexBallField: minor documentation improvements`

sagetrac-git · 2015-09-04T11:40:07Z

Changed commit from 448bf24 to 0196f69

cheuberg · 2015-09-07T13:49:56Z

Changed branch from u/mmezzarobba/19063-acb to u/cheuberg/19063-acb

sagetrac-git · 2015-09-07T13:51:12Z

Changed commit from 0196f69 to a33ceb4

sagetrac-git · 2015-09-07T13:51:12Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

`6f7bea0`	`Trac #19063: Fix indentation in doctest`
`80fcc47`	`Trac #19063: Simplify doctest`
`cacf2ce`	`Trac #19063: RESt formatting`
`d05b9a2`	`Trac #19063: Replace "nonzero" by "True"`
`e214cc9`	`fixup: true/false`
`b52f52a`	`Trac #19063: replace a few "int" by "bint"`
`a33ceb4`	`Trac #19063: Replace interval by ball in title`

cheuberg · 2015-09-07T13:57:39Z

comment:10

I have now reviewed this patch and added a few reviewer commits.

Questions:

ComplexBall.__init__: why Element.__init__ instead of RingElement.__init__
.some_elements: Is 1/3 intentional (this is an elaborate way of writing 0 in python)
Why is the representation real - imag*I restricted to exact negative imaginary parts and does not apply to
1 + [-0.333]*I
.__contains__, .contains_exact: why do we have two distinct methods here? Why is an integer or a rational as the argument of .__contains__ not handeled separately by the relevant .acb functions?

Apart from that, a few documentation issues:

_complex_mpfr_field_: missing INPUT: section (parameter parent)
_real_mpfi_: missing INPUT: section (parameter parent), One-sentence-description mentions "real number" instead of "real interval".
_mpfr_: missing INPUT: section (parameter parent)
.mid, .squash: missing OUTPUT: section
.mid should have "see also" section (.squash)
.identical refers to a method contains which does not exist.
.contains_exact, .identical, .overlaps: missing INPUT: section (parameter other)

cheuberg · 2015-09-07T13:57:39Z

Reviewer: Clemens Heuberger

mezzarobba · 2015-09-07T15:31:02Z

comment:11

Replying to @cheuberg:

I have now reviewed this patch and added a few reviewer commits.

Thanks!

Questions:

ComplexBall.__init__: why Element.__init__ instead of RingElement.__init__

Because I neglected to change it after changing the parent class. (I hate Python...)

.some_elements: Is 1/3 intentional (this is an elaborate way of writing 0 in python)

It wasn't intentional.

Why is the representation real - imag*I restricted to exact negative imaginary parts and does not apply to
1 + [-0.333]*I

The old version would return things like 1.000000000000000 + - 0.5000000000000000*I for exactly representable imaginary parts. I only implemented a minimal fix, thinking that the version with ... + [...] was clear enough and perhaps clearer otherwise (especially for intervals containing zero), but I have no strong feelings either way.

.__contains__, .contains_exact: why do we have two distinct methods here? Why is an integer or a rational as the argument of .__contains__ not handeled separately by the relevant .acb functions?

The idea was to have a version that first converts its argument to a ball (and thus can accept a wide range of argument types), but may not recognize that the argument is contained in the other ball if the conversion is not precise enough, and a version for which a result of False always guarantees that the argument is not in the ball. We could just document for which argument types the result of in is guaranteed to be accurate, but I felt it'd be clearer that way. Here too, I'm open to discussion if you don't like that choice.

Apart from that, a few documentation issues:

_complex_mpfr_field_: missing INPUT: section (parameter parent)

_real_mpfi_: missing INPUT: section (parameter parent), One-sentence-description mentions "real number" instead of "real interval".

_mpfr_: missing INPUT: section (parameter parent)

.mid, .squash: missing OUTPUT: section

.mid should have "see also" section (.squash)

.identical refers to a method contains which does not exist.

.contains_exact, .identical, .overlaps: missing INPUT: section (parameter other)

Thanks. But note that the formal requirement of pointless INPUT/OUTPUT sections in docstrings is apparently going to be relaxed (#19041), so I'm not sure we need them INPUT sections every time you noted they were missing.

cheuberg · 2015-09-07T17:44:07Z

comment:13

Replying to @mezzarobba:

Questions:

ComplexBall.__init__: why Element.__init__ instead of RingElement.__init__

Because I neglected to change it after changing the parent class. (I hate Python...)

If I remember correctly, there is some reason not to use super.

Why is the representation real - imag*I restricted to exact negative imaginary parts and does not apply to
1 + [-0.333]*I

The old version would return things like 1.000000000000000 + - 0.5000000000000000*I for exactly representable imaginary parts. I only implemented a minimal fix, thinking that the version with ... + [...] was clear enough and perhaps clearer otherwise (especially for intervals containing zero), but I have no strong feelings either way.

No strong feelings from my side; I was just wondering reading the code. For intervals containing the zero, it might indeed be strange.

.__contains__, .contains_exact: why do we have two distinct methods here? Why is an integer or a rational as the argument of .__contains__ not handeled separately by the relevant .acb functions?

The idea was to have a version that first converts its argument to a ball (and thus can accept a wide range of argument types), but may not recognize that the argument is contained in the other ball if the conversion is not precise enough, and a version for which a result of False always guarantees that the argument is not in the ball. We could just document for which argument types the result of in is guaranteed to be accurate, but I felt it'd be clearer that way. Here too, I'm open to discussion if you don't like that choice.

I think that rational in ball and integer in ball should give correct results in any case.

Apart from that, a few documentation issues:

_complex_mpfr_field_: missing INPUT: section (parameter parent)

_real_mpfi_: missing INPUT: section (parameter parent), One-sentence-description mentions "real number" instead of "real interval".

_mpfr_: missing INPUT: section (parameter parent)

.mid, .squash: missing OUTPUT: section

.mid should have "see also" section (.squash)

.identical refers to a method contains which does not exist.

.contains_exact, .identical, .overlaps: missing INPUT: section (parameter other)

Thanks. But note that the formal requirement of pointless INPUT/OUTPUT sections in docstrings is apparently going to be relaxed (#19041), so I'm not sure we need them INPUT sections every time you noted they were missing.

I know; the question is what is obvious and what not. My feelings are not very strong here.

mezzarobba · 2015-09-08T12:31:40Z

Changed branch from u/cheuberg/19063-acb to u/mmezzarobba/19063-acb

mezzarobba · 2015-09-08T12:31:40Z

New commits:

`ecc4636`	`#19063 Implement reviewer's comments`

mezzarobba · 2015-09-08T12:31:40Z

Changed commit from a33ceb4 to ecc4636

jdemeyer · 2015-10-15T13:40:32Z

comment:30

Replying to @mezzarobba:

Replying to @jdemeyer:

Or perhaps above_abs is not exactly the same as magnitude since the latter returns a real number instead of a ball. Still, it would be nice to implement magnitude like RIF.

Yes.

Regarding center(), I'd prefer to keep the name mid(), if only to emphazise that the midpoint is part of the defining data of the ball (and thus always is exact, while mpfi_mid() involves a rounding), but I have nothing against adding center() as an alias.

For most practical purposes, the rounding or not is just an implementation detail. Personally, I would prefer to use just one method name (for example, I don't like that some types implement prec() and some implement precision() but not all implement both: that's just confusing). Given that center() has been around for a while, I would prefer to use center() (and only that) also for arb.

jdemeyer · 2015-10-15T13:40:59Z

comment:31

By the way, I might be interesting in reviewing this ticket but only after the dependencies have been merged.

jdemeyer · 2015-10-15T13:45:56Z

comment:32

Replying to @mezzarobba:

It looks like the trac server ignored my push for some reason, but as far as I can tell the branch merges cleanly.

There is no branch...

mezzarobba · 2015-10-15T14:08:58Z

Commit: d13e70f

mezzarobba · 2015-10-15T14:08:58Z

Changed branch from u/mmezzarob/19063-acb to u/mmezzarobba/19063-acb

mezzarobba · 2015-10-15T14:08:58Z

comment:33

Replying to @jdemeyer:

Replying to @mezzarobba:

It looks like the trac server ignored my push for some reason, but as far as I can tell the branch merges cleanly.

There is no branch...

Oops, now I understand. Thanks!

Last 10 new commits:

`a7e94c2`	`ComplexBallField: minor documentation improvements`
`ea906fd`	`Trac #19063: Fix indentation in doctest`
`5886d73`	`Trac #19063: Simplify doctest`
`a2bf307`	`Trac #19063: RESt formatting`
`57a1c38`	`Trac #19063: Replace "nonzero" by "True"`
`2dccd9b`	`fixup: true/false`
`48c70da`	`Trac #19063: replace a few "int" by "bint"`
`91f9282`	`Trac #19063: Replace interval by ball in title`
`08d3d29`	`#19063 Implement reviewer's comments`
`d13e70f`	`Trac #19063: fix doctests on 32 bit`

cheuberg · 2015-10-16T10:17:11Z

Changed branch from u/mmezzarobba/19063-acb to u/cheuberg/19063-acb

cheuberg · 2015-10-16T10:18:42Z

comment:36

Did no longer merge cleanly with latest version of dependency #18546. Please check the merge.

New commits:

`03a7a4f`	`Merge tag '6.10.beta0' into t/18546/18546-arb-std`
`1091bfc`	`Merge branch 't/18546/18546-arb-std-rebased' into t/19063/19063-acb`

cheuberg · 2015-10-16T10:18:42Z

Changed commit from d13e70f to 1091bfc

mezzarobba · 2015-10-16T10:54:17Z

Changed commit from 1091bfc to none

mezzarobba · 2015-10-16T10:54:17Z

Changed branch from u/cheuberg/19063-acb to trac/u/mmezzarobba/19063-acb

mezzarobba · 2015-10-16T10:54:17Z

comment:37

replacing the branch by my version of the merge because I also rebased the follow-ups

mezzarobba · 2015-10-16T10:57:24Z

Changed branch from trac/u/mmezzarobba/19063-acb to u/mmezzarobba/19063-acb

mezzarobba · 2015-10-16T10:57:24Z

Commit: fa41787

cheuberg · 2015-10-16T11:06:22Z

comment:39

content of both branches is equal. Thus back to positive.

vbraun · 2015-10-30T08:33:30Z

Changed branch from u/mmezzarobba/19063-acb to fa41787

mezzarobba added this to the sage-6.9 milestone Aug 20, 2015

mezzarobba added c: numerical labels Aug 20, 2015

mezzarobba added the s: needs review label Aug 25, 2015

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

cheuberg added s: needs info and removed s: needs review labels Sep 7, 2015

mezzarobba added s: needs work and removed s: needs info labels Sep 7, 2015

mezzarobba removed the s: needs work label Sep 8, 2015

jdemeyer added s: needs work and removed s: positive review labels Oct 15, 2015

mezzarobba added s: positive review and removed s: needs work labels Oct 15, 2015

cheuberg modified the milestones: sage-6.9, sage-6.10 Oct 16, 2015

cheuberg added s: needs review and removed s: positive review labels Oct 16, 2015

cheuberg added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Oct 16, 2015

vbraun removed the s: positive review label Oct 30, 2015

vbraun closed this as completed in f5eefab Oct 30, 2015

This was referenced Jan 28, 2016

Elementary and special functions for complex balls #19082

Closed

{Real,Complex}Ball: Miscellaneous fixes and improvements #19152

Closed

Coercions and basic arithmetic for complex balls #19063

Coercions and basic arithmetic for complex balls #19063

Comments

mezzarobba commented Aug 20, 2015

mezzarobba commented Aug 20, 2015

mezzarobba commented Aug 20, 2015

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Aug 25, 2015

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Aug 25, 2015

mezzarobba commented Aug 25, 2015

mezzarobba commented Aug 25, 2015

This comment has been minimized.

cheuberg commented Sep 4, 2015

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Sep 4, 2015

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Sep 4, 2015

cheuberg commented Sep 7, 2015

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Sep 7, 2015

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Sep 7, 2015

cheuberg commented Sep 7, 2015

cheuberg commented Sep 7, 2015

mezzarobba commented Sep 7, 2015

cheuberg commented Sep 7, 2015

mezzarobba commented Sep 8, 2015

mezzarobba commented Sep 8, 2015

mezzarobba commented Sep 8, 2015

jdemeyer commented Oct 15, 2015

jdemeyer commented Oct 15, 2015

jdemeyer commented Oct 15, 2015

mezzarobba commented Oct 15, 2015

mezzarobba commented Oct 15, 2015

mezzarobba commented Oct 15, 2015

cheuberg commented Oct 16, 2015

cheuberg commented Oct 16, 2015

cheuberg commented Oct 16, 2015

mezzarobba commented Oct 16, 2015

mezzarobba commented Oct 16, 2015

mezzarobba commented Oct 16, 2015

mezzarobba commented Oct 16, 2015

mezzarobba commented Oct 16, 2015

cheuberg commented Oct 16, 2015

vbraun commented Oct 30, 2015