#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 checked this against a newform of level 21 and character of conductor 7,
 and it does indeed appear to be the case that the Atkin--Lehner operator
 as currently implemented in Sage differs from Atkin and Li's conventions
 (even in weight 2, where the issue of powers of Q does not arise).

 Sage's definition of the Atkin--Lehner operator seems to be that W,,Q,,^2^
 = e,,Q,,(-1) e,,N/Q,,(Q), while Atkin and Li require that W,,Q,,^2^ =
 e,,Q,,(-1) e,,N/Q,,(Q)^-1^.

 So there's a choice to be made here: we must have either an inconsistency
 between different parts of Sage, an inconsistency between Sage and Atkin--
 Li, or a non-backward-compatible change of conventions.

 I would actually favour the second option: there are plenty of other
 papers in the literature which use the convention W,,Q,,^2^ =
 Q^k-2^e,,Q,,(-1) e,,N/Q,,(Q). The great advantage of this convention is
 that if you use it, then the pseudo-eigenvalues l,,Q,, satisfy l,,QQ',, =
 l,,Q,, l,,Q',,, which is not the case with Atkin and Li's conventions.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18061#comment:22>
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.

Reply via email to