Is any possibility to find on MAGMA of integral points on elliptic curve
such type where coefficient by x^3 isn't equal 1 e.q.:
A := AffineSpace(Rationals(),2);
C := Curve(y^2-4*x^3+7*x+3);
IntegralPoints(C);
When I execute e.g.
IntegralQuarticPoints([0, 4, 0, -7, -3]);
output of Magma is:
)
In
A patch is up for review now at https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22063
On 15 December 2016 at 17:02, John Cremona wrote:
> Without going so far as to use interval arithmetic (which leads to at
> least one annoying problem: the RealIntervalField in Sage has no
>
Without going so far as to use interval arithmetic (which leads to at
least one annoying problem: the RealIntervalField in Sage has no
is_square() methods which is enough to make it hard to work with as
far as creating points on elliptic curves is concerned) I came up with
a better solution.
I
On 15 December 2016 at 14:52, wrote:
> @John : Good point. The change in precision, at least seems to fix the
> previous problems (at least in the specific examples).
> I suppose, this is the precision that is used to bound the coefficients of
> the linear form of elliptic
@John : Good point. The change in precision, at least seems to fix the
previous problems (at least in the specific examples).
I suppose, this is the precision that is used to bound the coefficients of
the linear form of elliptic logarithms (?)
If this is the case, and I remember right, this
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 12:23:15 PM UTC, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> I just confirmed that if I change RealField(100) to RealField(200) in
>> one place (line 6975 of ell_rational_field.py) then both the points
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 12:23:15 PM UTC, John Cremona wrote:
>
> I just confirmed that if I change RealField(100) to RealField(200) in
> one place (line 6975 of ell_rational_field.py) then both the points
> Costas missed are found, so I was right that this is a stupid problem
> of
I just confirmed that if I change RealField(100) to RealField(200) in
one place (line 6975 of ell_rational_field.py) then both the points
Costas missed are found, so I was right that this is a stupid problem
of precision rather than something more complicated.
I can easily make a patch to make
On 14 December 2016 at 21:34, wrote:
> Thank you both for the answers,
>
> I found another problematic example
>
> sage:E1=EllipticCurve([0,0,0,37,18]);E1;S=E1.integral_points();S;
> Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + 37*x + 18
> over Rational Field
> [(2 : 10 : 1), (126 :
Thank you both for the answers,
I found another problematic example
sage:E1=EllipticCurve([0,0,0,37,18]);E1;S=E1.integral_points();S;
Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + 37*x + 18
over Rational Field
[(2 : 10 : 1), (126 : 1416 : 1)]
and
R = E1(64039202,512470496030);M=E1(2,10 );3*M==R
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 12:09:36 PM UTC-8, John Cremona wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the bug report. As Nils pointed out there are known bugs
> in the integral point code which cause solutions to be missed.
Just to make clear: I wasn't taking a jibe at sage/or John on this, and I
wasn't
Dear Costas,
Thanks for the bug report. As Nils pointed out there are known bugs
in the integral point code which cause solutions to be missed. A lot
of work has been spent on improving this, in part by me, and the main
reason the fixes have not yet been approved and merged is that I still
had
Hi all,
I came across the following example...
sage: E1=EllipticCurve([0,0,0,49,-64]);E1;S=E1.integral_points();S;
Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + 49*x - 64 over Rational Field
[(4 : 14 : 1), (464 : 9996 : 1)]
but the following integer point Q belongs also to the curve
13 matches
Mail list logo