Lorenz Minder on Thu, 14 May 2009 04:18:19 +0200 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: Another problem with matrix inversion |
Hi, BA: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:50:53AM +0200, Lorenz Minder wrote: > > > PARI only know perform polynomial and linear algebra over a field, so > > > it assumes that moduli are prime. > > > > Yes, of course. My point is that it would be better if it worked also > > if the base-ring is not a field. Since even in that case, this is a > > meaningful question, a useful answer would be preferable, in my opinion. > > There is the major issue that module over a ring do not generally have a > basis. Right. But I can't see what you're getting at here. > > I did a sketchy implementation of what I outlined in the other mail, and > > a patch is attached. This patch only works for small integers right > now, > > as I have only modified Flm_gauss(), but not FpM_gauss(). It's not > > yet production code, only a prototype for discussion. > > Please do not change Flm and FpM function: they are meant to be restricted > to prime modulus. You will need to create new functions ZnM_xxx > to handle matrices over Z/nZ. Ok. (What would you do with, e.g., FpM_gauss()? Leave it there or have it simply call ZnM_gauss()?) > > It seems to work fine for what I need it, and so I'd like to > > ask if a more complete and tested patch among the same lines would be > > considered for inclusion in PARI. > > I trust that you can write a PARI function ZnM_gauss that would work > correctly. > > The issue is how do you plan to integrate that with GP and keep some > consistency ? i.e. it is always annoying when a feature (support for > rings) > is only supported for a particular ring (Z/nZ) and for a particular > function. Right now PARI knows how to add, subtract, multiply and divide in the ring A, where A is any of Z, Z[i], F[X], M_n(R) and others. (In particular, for any of these, 1/x gives me the A-inverse of x if it exists.) It also knows to add, subtract and multiply in M_n(Z/mZ). So as far as I can see, the inconsistency here is that it does not know in general how to divide in M_n(Z/mZ). It would of course be integrated into GP the same way as division over the other rings is implemented, by overloading the "/" operator, and by having matsolve() do something sane. So it would behave as it does with the current patch (except for the fact that the current patch does not handle large moduli). > And furthermore what application do you have in mind ? In my case, I need to solve a set of multivariate equations over GF(q). With the right change of variables I can (in some cases) reduce this to equations with only products, e.g. x*y*z = const_1, y*z*v = const_2, etc. Then I take the log (to some fixed basis) which gives me a set of linear equations in Z/(q - 1)Z. Of course, q - 1 is not prime. > > Incidentially, this patch seems to fix a nasty bug with Flm_gauss() when > > the right hand side is a t_COL instead of a t_MAT; but I could not find > > any caller using it that way in any case. (And I _might_ be > > misunderstanding the old code, but I think that is unlikely.) > > A function named FpM_gauss is not supposed to handle arguments that are > not > t_MAT. Then I think the non-functional support that someone has coded into these functions should be removed. Best, --Lorenz -- Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a