Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FTheoryTools] Rewrite _kodaira_type to work with any locus #3424

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 11, 2024

Conversation

apturner
Copy link
Collaborator

Rewrite the function _kodaira_type so that it should now work with any locus, rather than just loci of the form w = 0 for w a coordinate.

@apturner apturner marked this pull request as ready for review February 23, 2024 22:26
Comment on lines 182 to 184
quotient_gens = gens(groebner_basis(quotient(ideal([9 * poly_g]), ideal([2 * poly_f])) + locus_id))
deleteat!(quotient_gens, findall(g -> g == locus, quotient_gens))
quotient_val = quotient_gens[1]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am wondering if the check g == locus will always work. Generators of the quotient are not unique. Will the Groebner basis computation completely eliminate this redundancy? Also, could additional signs/numeric factors appear that would force g == locus to return false?

Less critical, but relevant: Unless I am mistaken this pattern of lines appears four times in this PR. Does it make sense to add an auxiliary function and call it instead to make the code shorter/cleaner?

@HereAround HereAround added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 24, 2024
Copy link
Member

@HereAround HereAround left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you @apturner . Generally speaking, looks good. I like the new tests.

I left a few nitpicks above, in case you want to address that. Otherwise, this can be merged from my point of view.

@HereAround
Copy link
Member

Thank you @apturner!

@HereAround HereAround enabled auto-merge (squash) March 11, 2024 10:19
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 11, 2024

Codecov Report

Merging #3424 (fae693f) into master (3c5f7fe) will decrease coverage by 0.47%.
Report is 60 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3424      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.93%   81.46%   -0.47%     
==========================================
  Files         561      563       +2     
  Lines       75170    80142    +4972     
==========================================
+ Hits        61588    65289    +3701     
- Misses      13582    14853    +1271     
Files Coverage Δ
experimental/FTheoryTools/src/auxiliary.jl 95.14% <100.00%> (+0.27%) ⬆️
experimental/FTheoryTools/test/tate_models.jl 100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 56 files with indirect coverage changes

@HereAround HereAround closed this Mar 11, 2024
auto-merge was automatically disabled March 11, 2024 11:10

Pull request was closed

@HereAround
Copy link
Member

HereAround commented Mar 11, 2024

Sorry @apturner - I just wanted to rebase this PR to the latest master (was very outdated - apparently a lot of last minute changes for the OSCAR 1.0 release over the last two weeks), so that I could convince myself that this PR works with all those changes. Usually, the rebase is pretty easy (for me, even more so if it is my own PR), but in this particular case something malfunctioned... Sorry about that.

In any case: I just opened a new PR with your changes here: #3506.

@HereAround HereAround reopened this Mar 11, 2024
@apturner
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I rolled back the two additional changes mentioned in #3506, as they are causing tests to fail for an unrelated reason. I will add these changes to the TODO.

@HereAround HereAround merged commit 653fded into oscar-system:master Mar 11, 2024
23 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants