Bug in dynatomic_polynomial

6 views
Skip to first unread message

David Krumm

unread,
Jun 23, 2023, 10:21:03 PM6/23/23
to sage-dynamics
For a degree-2 endomorphism of the projective line, the second dynatomic polynomial should have degree 2. In the following example, Sage returns 0 as the second dynatomic polynomial. 

K.<a> = Frac(QQ['a'])
P.<x,y> = ProjectiveSpace(K, 1)
f = x^2 + (a + 1/a - 3)*x*y - (2*a + 1/a - 3)*y^2
phi = DynamicalSystem_projective([f,x^2])
phi.dynatomic_polynomial(2)

Moreover, Sage crashes when computing the third dynatomic polynomial; I get the message "Unhandled SIGSEGV: A segmentation fault occurred". Any idea what might be going on here?

-- David

Ben

unread,
Jun 26, 2023, 7:36:14 AM6/26/23
to sage-d...@googlegroups.com
Seems to be something with the quotient and remainder failing in the
fraction field of a polynomial ring:

phi2=phi.nth_iterate_map(2)
D2=x*phi2[1] - y*phi2[0]
D=x*phi[1] - y*phi[0]
print(D.divides(D2))
D2.quo_rem(D)


If you normalize to a polynomal ring it is working just fine:

K.<a> = QQ[]
P.<x,y> = ProjectiveSpace(K, 1)
f = a*x^2 + (a^2 + 1 - 3*a)*x*y - (2*a^2 + 1 - 3*a)*y^2
phi = DynamicalSystem_projective([f,a*x^2])
phi.dynatomic_polynomial(2)

I haven't dug down to see the underlying issue yet.

Ben
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sage-dynamics" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sage-dynamic...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:sage-dynamic...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-dynamics/ccfcc717-9a44-4820-b0e2-57057fd01eefn%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-dynamics/ccfcc717-9a44-4820-b0e2-57057fd01eefn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

Ben

unread,
Jul 5, 2023, 11:07:47 AM7/5/23
to sage-d...@googlegroups.com
There is an issue now tracking the underlying bug here:

https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/35886



On 6/23/2023 9:21 PM, David Krumm wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages