-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 487
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
Improve handling of metrics on pseudo-Riemannian submanifolds #31781
Comments
comment:1
Actually, it appears that
|
comment:2
Since spheres are implemented as embedded manifolds, they are only endowed with the induced metric from the ambient space. Thus I'd say this is no bug. In particular it could happen that the user wants to endow spheres with metrics different from the induced one. I'd say we just mention this in the documentation. |
comment:3
Wait. We implemented spheres as Riemannian submanifolds which means that But then this is more a bug of |
comment:4
As for my first comment, perhaps it is a good idea to add an optional argument such as |
comment:5
Replying to @mjungmath:
Yes!
Indeed! |
comment:6
Replying to @mjungmath:
Yes, I would vote for |
comment:7
Replying to @egourgoulhon:
On a second thought, #31241 might be a better solution for that. |
comment:8
Moving to 9.4, as 9.3 has been released. |
comment:9
(see comment:11 below) |
comment:10
Should we instead attack the issue with |
comment:11
Replying to @mjungmath:
This issue is by the way not restricted to spheres. Also Pseudo-Riemannian manifolds can have different metrics. The current implementation even accommodates this. From that perspective, despite what I said earlier, I actually don't see the need for such a flag because this is in full line with the current way of using Pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. At this point it might also worth to mention that differentiable manifolds with imposed metrics are not seen as Pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. We don't even have a category for Pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. |
comment:12
Replying to @mjungmath:
Yes I think so (see comment:13 below). |
comment:13
Replying to @mjungmath:
In the current implementation, on any
To be consistent, on a
To acheive this, we should redefine |
comment:14
Replying to @egourgoulhon:
My thought exactly! |
comment:15
Replying to @mjungmath:
Very good. Do you plan to implement this? |
comment:16
Replying to @egourgoulhon:
I'd prefer to first work on tickets that are needed for my current project. Time is slipping through. As soon as those are done, I could come back to this one. |
comment:17
Replying to @mjungmath:
No problem, I'll implement it soon. |
comment:18
According to the discussion in comment:13 and comment:14, the above branch reimplements the method New commits:
|
Commit: |
Author: Eric Gourgoulhon |
comment:20
Is there a specific reason for this change? @@ -98,12 +98,12 @@ class DegenerateManifold(DifferentiableManifold):
- [DB1996]_
- [DS2010]_
"""
- def __init__(self, n, name, metric_name='g', signature=None, base_manifold=None,
- diff_degree=infinity, latex_name=None,
+ def __init__(self, n, name, metric_name=None, signature=None,
+ base_manifold=None, diff_degree=infinity, latex_name=None,
metric_latex_name=None, start_index=0, category=None,
unique_tag=None):
r"""
- Construct a pseudo-Riemannian manifold.
+ Construct a degenerate manifold.
TESTS::
@@ -130,7 +130,9 @@ class DegenerateManifold(DifferentiableManifold):
category=category)
self._metric = None # to be initialized by metric()
self._metric_signature = signature
- if not isinstance(metric_name, str):
+ if metric_name is None:
+ metric_name = 'g'
+ elif not isinstance(metric_name, str):
raise TypeError("{} is not a string".format(metric_name))
self._metric_name = metric_name
if metric_latex_name is None: Other than that, LGTM. What is wrong with the patchbot? |
comment:21
Replying to @mjungmath:
This is to normalize all the manifold
This corrects a (copy/paste) error in the docstring.
This restores
I don't know. At least one of them gave a green light (the only plugin failure is |
comment:22
Alright. |
comment:23
Thank you for the explanation. |
comment:24
Thank you for the review! |
Reviewer: Michael Jung |
Changed branch from public/manifolds/submanifold_metric-31781 to |
In Sage 9.3.rc5, we have
So far so good, but then
CC: @mjungmath
Component: manifolds
Author: Eric Gourgoulhon
Branch/Commit:
dc15aff
Reviewer: Michael Jung
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31781
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: