#7935: local_data for elliptic curves over number fields
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
   Reporter:  wuthrich         |       Owner:  cremona                          
                  
       Type:  defect           |      Status:  needs_review                     
                  
   Priority:  major            |   Milestone:  sage-4.3.1                       
                  
  Component:  elliptic curves  |    Keywords:  elliptic curve, number fields, 
local data, tamagawa
Work_issues:                   |      Author:                                   
                  
   Upstream:  N/A              |    Reviewer:                                   
                  
     Merged:                   |  
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Comment(by cremona):

 Thanks for all the excellent documentation!

 About the bug:  I am puzzled by this, as I still don't see how either my
 original code failed or how the change (of uniformiser) works best.  Here
 was my thinking:  if val(a_i)<0 for some i, then find the minimal e such
 that e*i+valuation(a_i) is >=0 for i in [1,2,3,4,6] and then replace a_i
 by {{{a_i/pi^(e*i)}}}.  The point about using the "negative" flag on the
 uniformiser was so ensure that dividing by a power of pi maintained
 integrality at all other primes.  Your new code will not do that.

 Would this be better:
 {{{
         D = self.discriminant()
         for P in D.prime_factors():
             if not all([a.valuation(P)>=0 for a in ai]):
                    pi=K.uniformizer(P,'negative')
                    e  = min([(ai[i].valuation(P)/[1,2,3,4,6][i]) for i in
 range(5)]).floor()
                    ai = [ai[i]/pi**(e*[1,2,3,4,6][i]) for i in range(5)]
 }}}
 ?

 I have not looked at your last point yet.  I am not so keen on
 tamagawa_product() not giving the product of the Tamagawa numbers.  Are
 you sure that over Q when an equation is non-minimal at p that the number
 returned by tamagawa_number() is not the index for the minimal model?  I
 thought that was what Tate's algorithm would give.  I'll need to look at
 it more closely.


 I am leaving this as "needs review" as I have not actually tested it yet!

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7935#comment:5>
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 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.


Reply via email to