Your product formula is a good idea. It's faster than my summation
formula.
On Dec 21, 3:40 am, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:38 am, rje ronevan...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the helpful response. The appropriate code for computing
Gamma(n).ncusps() is
n
In ticket 10506, John Cremona wrote the following in reference to
Gamma(n): Note that the next job is to add a method to return a set
of inequivalent cusps. The default implementation is stupidly slow (as
proved by the fact that the old default for ncusps() was to find all
the cusps and count
this by implementing a suitabel
formula for the principal congruence subgroups?
John Cremona
On Dec 19, 10:51 pm, rje ronevan...@gmail.com wrote:
Sage is slow in computing the number of
cusps for Gamma(n).
Look, for example, at the disparity in times below.
sage: time Gamma(5).ncusps()
CPU times
Sage is slow in computing the number of
cusps for Gamma(n).
Look, for example, at the disparity in times below.
sage: time Gamma(5).ncusps()
CPU times: user 52.02 s, sys: 0.24 s, total: 52.26 s
Wall time: 52.29 s
12
sage: time Gamma0(5).ncusps()
CPU times: user 0.00 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.00
What is going on here? Does this only work for even weights? rje
sage: n=numerical_eigenforms(15,3);n.ap(2)
[]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support
sage: X=DirichletGroup(6).list();
sage: X[0]
[1, 1]
sage: X[0][1, 1]
True
--
Why is this True, and what's the corrected syntax?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To
sage: X=DirichletGroup(6).list();
sage: X[0]
[1, 1]
sage: X[0][1, 1]
True
--
Why is this True, and what's the corrected syntax?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To
