Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

improving it https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/39161 On Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 10:58:40 AM UTC+1 Giacomo Pope wrote: > OK -- I'll do my best to break things down into the most manageable sizes > to give this the best chance. > > As for the maths/arithmetic, what w

Re: [sage-devel] Build failure on MacOS Sequoia 15.1.1 due to GMP

ut I guess this is going a little too far away from Sage for it to be your problem! I'll see if I can fix this On Tuesday, December 3, 2024 at 5:17:03 PM UTC dim...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 4:15 AM Giacomo Pope wrote: > > > > Running brew install gmp:

[sage-devel] Build failure on MacOS Sequoia 15.1.1 due to GMP

Workflow: ``` Jack: sage % source ./.homebrew-build-env Jack: sage % make configure ... Jack: sage % ./configure ... - Checking whether SageMath should install SPKG gmp... checking for gmp.h... no checking for gmpxx.h..

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

OK -- I'll do my best to break things down into the most manageable sizes to give this the best chance. As for the maths/arithmetic, what we have coded gets Sage to the same point as Magma, although with a different representation. In our implementation, we follow the paper: https://eprint.ia

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

nality for hyperelliptic curves into sagemath On Monday, March 18, 2024 at 4:58:08 PM UTC Giacomo Pope wrote: > To make discussion on this point easier, I have made a GitHub issue: > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37626 > > For progress on this code, we have all doctest

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

urves over rings - we cannot use the current rational_points method from algebraic_schemes due to missing methods in the homset of toric varieties We are also working on pairings as well as isomorphisms on top of supporting all older features. On Friday, March 15, 2024 at 6:47:02 PM UTC Giacomo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

del in weighted projective space to resolve singularities and find two points (1 : 1 : 0) and (-1 : 1 : 0) at infinity. ``` On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 6:23:38 PM UTC Giacomo Pope wrote: > Thanks so much for the context > > Oh interesting. In this case I wonder whether

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

ular code there could be expanded to work much more > efficiently on hyperelliptic curves. > > On Wednesday 13 March 2024 at 10:32:08 UTC-7 Giacomo Pope wrote: > >> Thanks David, there's a bunch of nice things we could do for genus two in >> various cases which would

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

ed on it. > David > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 12:10 PM Giacomo Pope wrote: > >> Thank you for linking this and I agree this is a great way to >> cross-compare the work we have been doing. I am not an expert in this area >> so I am not sure I should do a full r

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

. On Monday, March 11, 2024 at 6:23:38 AM UTC Kwankyu Lee wrote: > On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 7:37:04 PM UTC+9 Giacomo Pope wrote: > > As a small update, the repository now contains code to > > - perform arithmetic for > - the imaginary model (ramified, one point at infinity)

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: use the smooth model instead of the plane projective model for hyperelliptic curves

e/issues/37167 > > this is something that should be addressed, one way or another > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:31 PM Giacomo Pope wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> *Summary* >> >> To better support arithmetic on Jacobians and have a more natural

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use the smooth model instead of the plane projective model for hyperelliptic curves

11 March 2024 at 15:04:50 UTC-7 Giacomo Pope wrote: > > I chose the weighting (1 : g + 1 : 1) following Galbraith's textbook > https://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~sgal018/crypto-book/ch10.pdf when > implementing the arithmetic on the Jacobian. This is not a "good" answer >

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use the smooth model instead of the plane projective model for hyperelliptic curves

I chose the weighting (1 : g + 1 : 1) following Galbraith's textbook https://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~sgal018/crypto-book/ch10.pdf when implementing the arithmetic on the Jacobian. This is not a "good" answer though. I would love to hear from more people about what they use / would want to use

[sage-devel] VOTE: use the smooth model instead of the plane projective model for hyperelliptic curves

Dear all, *Summary* To better support arithmetic on Jacobians and have a more natural implementation of hyperelliptic curves, we should implement them as toric varieties with a weighted polynomial ring (1 : 3 : 1) instead of plane projective curves. *Yes / No* *Discussion* I am currently ho

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

As a small update, the repository now contains code to - perform arithmetic for - the imaginary model (ramified, one point at infinity) for all cases - the real model (split, two points at infinity) for all cases - the real model (inert, zero points at infinity) for even genus Which allows

Re: [sage-devel] Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

ient. > > > John > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2024, 12:52 Giacomo Pope, wrote: > >> *=== Summary* >> >> Arithmetic of divisors for Jacobians of hyperelliptic curves with two >> points at infinity is not currently properly supported for SageMath. Worse, >> th

Re: [sage-devel] sensational bug!

This was also something I saw in: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37455 and I haven't been able to locally reproduce it either. On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 12:18:51 PM UTC dmo...@deductivepress.ca wrote: > I think this is issue > #3571

[sage-devel] Help and Advice | Arithmetic of Jacobians in the Split/Real Model is Broken

*=== Summary* Arithmetic of divisors for Jacobians of hyperelliptic curves with two points at infinity is not currently properly supported for SageMath. Worse, there are no checks or error handling and the output of the arithmetic is simply wrong. Minimal example: sage: R. = PolynomialRing(GF

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 1:57:48 PM UTC Dima Pasechnik wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:43 AM David Roe wrote: > >> The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in >> PR #37428 , in this thread >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

o the univariate one. On Friday, March 1, 2024 at 6:18:01 PM UTC Nils Bruin wrote: > On Friday 1 March 2024 at 09:49:15 UTC-8 Giacomo Pope wrote: > > Following this discussion, I have made a draft PR to change the degree for > *only* the LaurentPolynomialRing and I will see if the CI

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

Following this discussion, I have made a draft PR to change the degree for *only* the LaurentPolynomialRing and I will see if the CI detects anything. https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37513 I agree that if we change the LaurentPolynomialRing we should also change the `LaurentSeriesRing`, a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

Nils Bruin wrote: > >> On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 08:03:45 UTC-8 Giacomo Pope wrote: >> >> >> I don't know the history of this choice or what we should be doing >> generally. -1 for polynomials with only positive degree seems like a >> computer

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

roups.com> wrote: > >> Sorry, I confused it with valuation, but I guess it is still a related >> question. >> On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 14:36:35 UTC+1 Giacomo Pope wrote: >> >>> This is not what I see on the current beta: >>> >>> sage:

[sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

is still a related > question. > On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 14:36:35 UTC+1 Giacomo Pope wrote: > >> This is not what I see on the current beta: >> >> sage: R. = LaurentSeriesRing(QQ) >> sage: R.zero().degree() >> -1 >> sage: R. = La

[sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

' On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 12:05:32 PM UTC Martin R wrote: > LazyLaurentSeriesRing(QQ) currently gives +Infinity. > > On Wednesday 28 February 2024 at 12:50:45 UTC+1 Giacomo Pope wrote: > >> While chasing various bugs which appeared in the CI, I ended up adding a

[sage-devel] Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

While chasing various bugs which appeared in the CI, I ended up adding a small method for computing random elements for the LaurentPolynomialRing class. When writing randomised testing I got myself confused about the degree of the zero polynomial. For the univariate and multivariate polynomial

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

Apologies for the basic question in this thread, but recently I have seen lots of conversation about the different labels and I want to clarify something for myself. In the past few PR I have made for Sage, randomised testing has uncovered (usually) trivial bugs. I then write new PRs to fix the

Re: [sage-devel] Need advice on PR attempting to modify coercion for Python int type

To follow up on this, with a few more tweaks I have all the CI passing. If a coercion expert wants to review the PR I would appreciate that, but I'm hopeful that this change is a net positive for sagemath. On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 2:53:26 PM UTC Giacomo Pope wrote: > Yes,

Re: [sage-devel] Need advice on PR attempting to modify coercion for Python int type

? > Our CI sometimes acts up > > > On 20 February 2024 12:49:03 GMT, Giacomo Pope wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I have been trying to work on a fix for scalar multiplication of points >> on elliptic curves over finite fields. The issue at the moment is that wh

[sage-devel] Need advice on PR attempting to modify coercion for Python int type

Hey all, I have been trying to work on a fix for scalar multiplication of points on elliptic curves over finite fields. The issue at the moment is that when we multiply by a Sage type, such as an Integer, the coercion system discovers the action via `_acted_upon_` and a fast method via Pari is