Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
move code from
Oscar.jl/experimental/GModule/Misc.jl
here #1675move code from
Oscar.jl/experimental/GModule/Misc.jl
here #1675Changes from 1 commit
902682a
1780be1
894cfe2
6f71ea2
7965826
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe rename to
is_sub_with_inclusion
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, isn't this mathematically wrong? That is: if all summands are free, then M is free. But M might be free even though its summands are not (keyword: projective modules, etc.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@fieker In which situation was
is_free(::DirectSumModule)
missing?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@thofma points out:
This is of course true, but is there a way we can use this knowledge to improve the code above? I mean we could certainly restrict it to modules over fields; or over AA "integers", and AA univariates polynomials over fields, and perhaps a few more. But we can't do this generally here (e.g. not for fields over
Nemo.ZZRing
). But maybe we don't, it depends on what the application here is?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, but it is the same for all the functionality of things involving
FPModule
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Aha. The documentation indeed says:
but that's the only place in
docs/src/free_module.md
mentioning Euclideanand it then proceeds to say
which to makes it not at all clear whether or not e.g.
FreeModule{T}
is only supposed to be used over Euclidean rings.And
docs/src/direct_sum.md
does not mention Euclidean/principal/PID at all.But
docs/src/module.md
then goes on to say thiswhich ought to settle it, except it then proceeds in the very next sentence to say
which again leaves it completely unclear to me what is supposed to work in which case or not.
I think adding an
is_free
method that knowingly returns wrong results sometimes is problematic. At the very least its docstring then should contain a big warning?Better would be if we could just restrict it -- e.g. if this only for direct sums over integers or fields it'd be fine. But that begs the question where is even used -- @fieker?
Alternatively I could also live with such a method:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this function should have
hom
in its name. In Oscar, we call the similar function that lifts homs to a tensor producthom_tensor
. For direct sums, there is the equivalent for Lie algebra modules ashom_direct_sum
, but we can adapt the name of that in Oscar to match this one here. But IMO it should start withhom_*