#18061: Implement (correct) action of Atkin-Lehner operators on newforms
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: pbruin | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: modular forms | Resolution:
Keywords: newform Atkin- | Merged in:
Lehner operator | Reviewers:
Authors: Peter Bruin | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | a98bee2a3337431582e1762a0bf30f7577742bee
u/pbruin/18061-atkin_lehner_action | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: #18068, #18072, |
#18086, #18478 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by davidloeffler):
I had another look at your implementation. When using the modular-symbols
algorithm, why do you take the conjugate of the (0,0) matrix entry? This
is going to be quite slow to compute (because Sage has to verify from
first principles that the coefficient fields are CM); and, more
importantly, isn't it clearly the wrong answer?
(Maybe Sage's conventions for Atkin--Lehner operators aren't the same as
Atkin and Li, and the conjugation is the difference between conventions;
but I think it would be very bad and confusing if Sage's conventions
weren't internally consistent!)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18061#comment:21>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
