sage.{topology,homology}: Modularization fixes#35581
sage.{topology,homology}: Modularization fixes#35581vbraun merged 24 commits intosagemath:developfrom
sage.{topology,homology}: Modularization fixes#35581Conversation
…mology_modularization
…mology_modularization
| sage: X = FilteredSimplicialComplex(l) | ||
| sage: X._persistent_homology() | ||
| sage: X._persistent_homology() # optional - sage.rings.finite_rings | ||
| [[(0, 1), (1, 2), (0, +Infinity)], [(3, 4), (2, +Infinity)], []] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for catching this, I'll add it.
| sage: C2.simplified() | ||
| sage: RP2 = simplicial_complexes.RealProjectiveSpace(2) # optional - sage.libs.pari | ||
| sage: C2 = RP2.fundamental_group(simplify=False); C2 # optional - sage.graphs sage.groups sage.libs.pari | ||
| Finitely presented group < e0, e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6, e7, e8, e9 | e0, e3, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does L4090 need sage.libs.pari? Or is it L4091?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like a mistake. I have removed sage.libs.pari from all lines in this block
| sage: S.automorphism_group().is_isomorphic(SymmetricGroup(4)) | ||
| sage: S.automorphism_group().is_isomorphic(SymmetricGroup(4)) # optional - sage.graphs | ||
| True | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this sage.graphs or sage.groups?
| sage: P = T.pushout(inc, inc) # optional - sage.graphs | ||
| sage: P.homology() # optional - sage.graphs | ||
| {0: 0, 1: 0, 2: Z x Z, 3: Z} | ||
| sage: len(P.nondegenerate_simplices()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No sage.modules or sage.groups?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A lot of sage.modules are missing in this file. Adding now
| sage: mc_susp_eta = eta.suspension().mapping_cone() # optional - sage.graphs | ||
| sage: susp_mc_eta = eta.mapping_cone().suspension() # optional - sage.graphs | ||
| sage: mc_susp_eta.homology() == susp_mc_eta.homology() # optional - sage.graphs | ||
| True |
|
Though I looked through all changes, definitely I could not check everything. However, as I understand it, these |
Right. For testing the monolithic Sage library, there is no change at all. (The only thing that could go wrong is to misspell a |
|
Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit c4c593a) is ready! 🎉 |
|
Thanks for the review! |
3 participants
📚 Description
sage.topologyis closely linked to functionality fromsage.graphs. Doctests that either use methods or examples that requiresage.graphsare marked# optional - sage.graphs; likewise forsage.groups(for multiplicative groups) and (less often)sage.combinat.Doctests that use finite fields are marked as
# optional - sage.rings.finite_ringsbecause implementation classes of GF(...) depend on various libraries.Doctests that compute homology are marked as
# optional - sage.modulesbecausesage.homologyneeds vector spaces. This functionality is not part of the distribution sagemath-categories but a higher up distribution (as of #35095, the distribution sagemath-polyhedra containssage.modules,sage.matrix,sage.homology).Doctests involving free resolutions are marked
# optional - sage.libs.singular.Some examples are read from data files; the corresponding tests are now marked
# optional - pyparsing.A sporadic use of a function from
numpyhas been replaced by an equivalentitertoolsfunction.The correct placement of the
# optionaltags can be (and has been) tested using #35095.While going through the doctests, I also reformatted some so that they can be read in our HTML documentation style (furo) without having to scroll horizontally.
Part of:
📝 Checklist
⌛ Dependencies