#8777: unify the definitions and semantics for elliptic curve and abelian
variety
torsion subgroups
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: was | Owner: was
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-4.4.1
Component: number theory | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Comment(by was):
Instead of trying to decide based on any sort of logic, I think the at
this point the best thing to do is to
change the behavior/semantics of modular abelian varieties to match
elliptic curves, since there are probably 100 times as many users (and
client code) for elliptic curves as for abelian varieties.
By the way, to get the invariants of the J0(11)'s rational torsion
subgroup, do this:
{{{
sage: T = J0(11).rational_torsion_subgroup()
sage: T.invariants()
[5]
}}}
One reason that there is no T.abelian_group(), is that abelian groups
didn't exist in Sage when I first implemented finite subgroups of abelian
varieties.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8777#comment:1>
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.
