#8701: implement scalar-valued Siegel modular forms on Sp(4,Z)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reporter: AlexGhitza
| Owner: craigcitro
Type: enhancement
| Status: needs_work
Priority: major
| Milestone: sage-4.4.4
Component: modular forms
| Keywords: siegel modular forms
Author: Nils-Peter Skoruppa, Nathan Ryan, Martin Raum, Gonzalo Tornaria,
Craig Citro, Alex Ghitza | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer:
| Merged:
Work_issues:
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Description changed by AlexGhitza:
Old description:
> At Sage Days 20.25 in Montreal, we have decided to submit an initial
> version of the Siegel modular forms code by Friday 16 April 2010.
>
> It's now a few minutes before midnight, and lest I turn into a pumpkin, I
> am uploading a patch with what we have so far.
>
> I'm marking it as "needs work" since there are still a number of issues
> to be resolved. I'll list these in the comments soon.
>
> To clarify: I submitted this just before midnight Seattle time, so one
> could argue that it was before the deadline :)
>
> The patch applies cleanly to sage-4.3.5, and passes all but one test.
> The doctest coverage is 99%. The patch should also apply cleanly to
> earlier versions of Sage, but depending of how far back you go the tests
> might not pass any more. I checked with sage-4.3.3 and it was fine.
>
> Since this patch includes the patches at trac #8602 and #8681, it will
> fail to apply when those tickets get reviewed positively and merged. In
> fact, #8602 just got merged into sage-4.4.alpha0, so I will eventually
> rebase the Siegel patch on top of that.
>
> I believe that the objective of this first submission is to have
> something that works perfectly in the case of scalar-valued forms on
> {{{Sp(4,Z)}}}. Here are the issues that I am aware of and are still
> blocking this:
>
> 1. DONE {{{SiegelModularFormsFunctor}}} does not completely fit in with
> the other similar functors in Sage. For one thing, it seems that the
> right place to put it is in sage.categories.pushout. We should have a
> careful look at this class.
> 1. We need top-level documentation in {{{siegel_modular_form.py}}} that
> explains in detail how the code is meant to be used, what the interesting
> features are, etc. We also need to explain how precisions work (either
> in the main file or in {{{siegel_modular_form_prec.py}}}
> 1. The computation of the generators for {{{weights='all'}}} breaks at
> the fifth generator
> 1. The argument {{{degree}}} in {{{_siegel_modular_forms_generators}}}
> should be properly documented, and there should be a doctest for it (I
> don't like the name "degree" BTW, because it already has a meaning for
> Siegel modular forms)
> 1. The argument {{{default_prec}}} in {{{SiegelModularFormsAlgebra}}}
> should be documented
> 1. There are a few docstrings left that are not valid ReST, and there is
> one error while building the documentation
> 1. DONE We should have some tests of the form {{{TestSuite(s).run()}}}
> 1. We should put copyright headers in all the source files in the
> directory.
>
> If you want to add to or modify these, please feel free to do this by
> editing the description on this ticket.
New description:
At Sage Days 20.25 in Montreal, we have decided to submit an initial
version of the Siegel modular forms code by Friday 16 April 2010.
It's now a few minutes before midnight, and lest I turn into a pumpkin, I
am uploading a patch with what we have so far.
I'm marking it as "needs work" since there are still a number of issues to
be resolved. I'll list these in the comments soon.
To clarify: I submitted this just before midnight Seattle time, so one
could argue that it was before the deadline :)
The patch applies cleanly to sage-4.4.3 and sage-4.4.4.alpha0, and passes
all tests. The doctest coverage is 98.8% (81 out of 82 functions). The
patch will not work with earlier versions of Sage since it depends on
patches at #8602 and #8681 which have now been merged.
I believe that the objective of this first submission is to have something
that works perfectly in the case of scalar-valued forms on {{{Sp(4,Z)}}}.
Here are the issues that I am aware of and are still blocking this:
1. We need top-level documentation in {{{siegel_modular_form.py}}} that
explains in detail how the code is meant to be used, what the interesting
features are, etc. We also need to explain how precisions work (either in
the main file or in {{{siegel_modular_form_prec.py}}}
1. The computation of the generators for {{{weights='all'}}} breaks at
the fifth generator
1. The argument {{{degree}}} in {{{_siegel_modular_forms_generators}}}
should be properly documented, and there should be a doctest for it (I
don't like the name "degree" BTW, because it already has a meaning for
Siegel modular forms)
1. The argument {{{default_prec}}} in {{{SiegelModularFormsAlgebra}}}
should be documented
1. There are a few docstrings left that are not valid ReST, and there is
one error while building the documentation
1. We should put copyright headers in all the source files in the
directory.
If you want to add to or modify these, please feel free to do this by
editing the description on this ticket.
--
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8701#comment:7>
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.
