#18614: Abelian variety constructor needs sanity checks
-------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: davidloeffler | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: modular forms | Resolution:
Keywords: abelian varieties | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by was):
> the construction only makes sense when the weight is 2
Mathematically, the construction makes sense for any weight, with the
caveat that when the weight is > 2 the abelian variety is likely not
defined over a number field (it's defined over RR or CC). Shimura even
wrote a paper about doing this with Delta back in the 60's... There are
also some more examples in my ph.d. thesis.
> the construction only makes sense when the modular symbol space is
defined over QQ
Again, at least mathematically the construction makes sense in more
generality than over QQ.
I'm not claiming anything about the code in Sage making sense beyond "over
QQ" and weight 2, though I definitely always planned for it to do so.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18614#comment:2>
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.
