#5736: [with patch, needs work] Improve doctest coverage for sage/modular/hecke
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Reporter: davidloeffler | Owner: davidloeffler
Type: defect | Status: assigned
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-3.4.2
Component: modular forms | Keywords:
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Comment(by was):
> It's not a very likely use case, I suppose, so maybe it is safer
> just to force the recomputation. Let me know what you think, and I'll do
a new patch.
You have some good points. The safest thing I can think of that also
"solves" your problem (at least for a sufficiently diligent user!), would
be to provide the option to set the n-th Hecke operator from a known
matrix. Something like
{{{
sage: M = ModularForms(Gamma0(10), 12)
sage: M.unsafe_set_hecke_matrix(123456789, mat)
sage: M.hecke_operator(123456789).matrix()
# instant
}}}
The documentation for the function would make the issues with bases clear.
This should be done as part of another patch, imho. It could be useful
in a lot of contexts, where for some reason one knows what the n-th hecke
matrix is much more efficiently than Sage does, but doesn't want to dive
into the guts of Sage's modular forms and code why one has this extra
knowledge.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5736#comment:5>
Sage <http://sagemath.org/>
Sage - Open Source Mathematical Software: Building the Car Instead of
Reinventing the Wheel
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
