Skip to content
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

Relax restriction to a single looked table for CTL #90

Open
wants to merge 36 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

matthiasgoergens
Copy link
Collaborator

In our use of plonky2, we have a few instances where we need both several looked and several looking tables. Think of these lookups as many-to-many multiplexers, or a kind of bus. Looking tables can be thought of as pushing values with an obligation to process them onto the bus, looked tables can be seen as pulling values to discharge that obligation.

My first attempt changed from looked_table to looked_tables, but then I noticed that thanks to logup, we don't need this complication: looked_tables are just looking_tables with negative multiplicities.

Thus we can get a simpler system by just removing looked_table completely, and giving people tools to negate the multiplicities of their lookup tables.

We also preserve the old CrossTableLookup::new, which applies the negation to the passed looked_table automatically to keep the API as compatible as possible.

This PR only touches cross table lookups. We could do the same for the intra-table lookups in starky/src/lookup.rs. But that's for a separate PR.

This is a port of 0xPolygonZero#1575

matthiasgoergens and others added 30 commits April 22, 2024 10:45
In our use of plonky2, we have a few instances where we need both
several looked and several looking tables.  Think of these lookups as
many-to-many multiplexers, or a kind of bus.  Looking tables can be
thought of as pushing values with an obligation to process them onto the
bus, looked tables can be seen as pulling values to discharge that
obligation.

My first attempt changed from `looked_table` to `looked_tables`, but
then I noticed that thanks to logup, we don't need this complication:
looked_tables are just looking_tables with negative multiplicities.

Thus we can get a simpler system by just removing `looked_table`
completely, and giving people tools to negate the multiplicities of
their lookup tables.

We also preserve the old `CrossTableLookup::new`, which applies the
negation to the passed `looked_table` automatically to keep the API as
compatible as possible.
In our use of plonky2, we have a few instances where we need both
several looked and several looking tables.  Think of these lookups as
many-to-many multiplexers, or a kind of bus.  Looking tables can be
thought of as pushing values with an obligation to process them onto the
bus, looked tables can be seen as pulling values to discharge that
obligation.

My first attempt changed from `looked_table` to `looked_tables`, but
then I noticed that thanks to logup, we don't need this complication:
looked_tables are just looking_tables with negative multiplicities.

Thus we can get a simpler system by just removing `looked_table`
completely, and giving people tools to negate the multiplicities of
their lookup tables.

We also preserve the old `CrossTableLookup::new`, which applies the
negation to the passed `looked_table` automatically to keep the API as
compatible as possible.
This used to fail with an out of bounds error when `None` was passed for
`ctl_extra_looking_sums`.
matthiasgoergens and others added 6 commits April 25, 2024 13:08
…PolygonZero#1584)

This used to fail with an out of bounds error when `None` was passed for
`ctl_extra_looking_sums`.
* update 2-adic generator to `0x64fdd1a46201e246`

this necesstitates that we also change the various lifts of the two-adic generator; i.e. the lifts to mult. generators of the _entire_ field, as well as the lifts to 2-adic generators of the various extension fields.

* cargo fmt

---------

Co-authored-by: Benjamin Diamond <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants