#171 closed proposed feature (invalid)
PLURAL::nres seems to miss some syzygies
Reported by: | Mohamed Barakat | Owned by: | Oleksandr |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | 3-1-1 |
Component: | singular-kernel | Version: | 3-1-0 |
Keywords: | PLURAL, res, syz | Cc: | Oleksandr |
Description
reorted on Oct 18, 2009, by: name=Mohamed Barakat email=barakat@… type=computational version=3-0-4, 3-1-0 platform=Mac OS X, Linux request=
Plural's nres misses some syzygies in the below example: compare var_7 and var_8
Best regards,
Mohamed
/ begin / option(noredefine);option(redSB);LIB "matrix.lib";LIB "control.lib";LIB "ring.lib";LIB "involut.lib";LIB "nctools.lib";LIB "poly.lib";LIB "finvar.lib";
ring var_3 = 0,(x,y,z,Dx,Dy,Dz),dp; def var_4 = Weyl(); setring var_4; option(redTail);short=0;
matrix var_6[1][3] = 3*Dy-Dz,2*x,3*Dx+3*Dz; matrix var_7 = syz(var_6); matrix var_8 = nres(var_6,2)[2];
Change History (8)
comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by
Cc: | Oleksandr added |
---|---|
Owner: | changed from somebody to levandov |
Priority: | minor → major |
comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by
comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by
As I have written before, this bug has been fixed by myself 11.March.2010. Funny enough I cannot see my message in the trac system... The only thing why it was left open is
"Alex Motsak muss mal schauen ob SCA Ringe richtig damit behoben werden.".
Besides, the answers of var_7 and var_8 are though looking different, they have the same Groebner basis, so the world is ok with this example.
comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by
Owner: | changed from levandov to Oleksandr |
---|
My work is done, so I reassign the remaining (SCA issues) to Alex Motsak.
comment:6 Changed 12 years ago by
Keywords: | res syz added; syzygies removed |
---|---|
Resolution: | → invalid |
Status: | new → closed |
Type: | bug → proposed feature |
As Viktor noted: "though looking different, they have the same Groebner basis" i don't see any problem with this example.
Computing e.g.
gives the same as
Hence computing 3 steps of the resolution is ok, while 2 is not enough.
Justification: modify one of the generators, making it non-homogeneous, then everything must be fine. In the following I replace the second entry in the matrix var_6, what is 2x, by 2x+1 - and the results are coherent.
Now,
deliver the same correct answer.