-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 424
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
DrinfeldModule is_isomorphic method does the opposite of what it says for rational isomorphisms #38276
Comments
I agree that the documentation needs to be fixed ( However, I believe that |
I'm fine with that (or the other options, for that matter). |
I agree with what Xavier said! |
Ok, I'll try to do that in the next few days. If somebody wants to do it, feel free to. |
… flag <!-- ^ Please provide a concise and informative title. --> <!-- ^ Don't put issue numbers in the title, do this in the PR description below. --> <!-- ^ For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#12345" use "Introduce new method to calculate 1 + 2". --> <!-- v Describe your changes below in detail. --> <!-- v Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? --> <!-- v If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For example, "Fixes sagemath#12345". --> Fixes sagemath#38276. @xcaruso @DavidAyotte @ymusleh ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> - [X] The title is concise and informative. - [X] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [X] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [X] I have created tests covering the changes. - [X] I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on. For example, --> <!-- - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency --> <!-- - sagemath#34567: ... --> URL: sagemath#38303 Reported by: Antoine Leudière Reviewer(s): Travis Scrimshaw, Xavier Caruso
The documentation of the
is_isomorphic
method ofDrnifeldModule
is erroneous. On line 1316 and after it is said that by default, the method looks for an isomorphism defined on the algebraic closure; the keywordabsolutely
would beTrue
if and only if the isomorphism is defined on the ground field.Indeed, the keyword is set to
False
by default (line 1309 and after):But the opposite of that is coded (line
1440 and after):
This must be fixed. I'm thinking that by default, the isomorphism should be
looked for in the whole algebraic closure, to be consistent with the
j_invariant
method:Maybe a clearer name for the keyword could be picked, e.g.
algebraic_closure
(although I do not have a strong opinion on this).@xcaruso @DavidAyotte @ymusleh
Environment
Checklist
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: