Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make pretty coefficients #654

Closed
davidfarmer opened this issue Dec 15, 2015 · 9 comments
Closed

Make pretty coefficients #654

davidfarmer opened this issue Dec 15, 2015 · 9 comments
Assignees
Labels
CMF Classical modular forms feature request Feature request
Milestone

Comments

@davidfarmer
Copy link
Member

Use pari to find nicer coefficients

@davidfarmer davidfarmer added the CMF Classical modular forms label Dec 15, 2015
@davidfarmer davidfarmer added this to the v1.0 milestone Dec 15, 2015
@davidfarmer davidfarmer added more info needed More information is needed before the issue can be addressed/resolved December and removed more info needed More information is needed before the issue can be addressed/resolved labels Dec 15, 2015
@JohnCremona
Copy link
Member

Nicolas wrote a script which will be incorporated into the LMFDB code after consideration by Stephan and/or Fredrik.

@JohnCremona JohnCremona modified the milestone: v1.0 Dec 18, 2015
@JohnCremona
Copy link
Member

I am removing December from this one; it still has v1.0

@AndrewVSutherland
Copy link
Member

Perhaps this issue should be merged with #1237

@sehlen
Copy link
Contributor

sehlen commented May 17, 2016

I think these are two separate issues.
This one here is not so much about the display itself but about the data being converted, i.e. find a nicer basis for the number field so that the coefficients become simpler (as expressed in terms of that basis). The other issue #1237 is imho more about how to display the data that has been computed in cases where it just is to complicated to be human-readable.

I think @fredstro started using Nicolas Mascot's pari script already and tested it a bit but I don't know how much it helped and if it has been tested enough. But I know for sure that it does not always terminate and that we need a smart way of calling it with a timeout or we might need to improve the routine. It might in fact be better to improve the way sage computes the coefficients in the first place to not do work twice when computing the forms.

Btw, my impression is that the data magma produces is not better at all but I can take a look at it in a more systematic way at some point.

@AndrewVSutherland
Copy link
Member

OK, lets keep them separate (and FWIW I don't think Magma is much better at this, if anything is likely to help it is probably Pari). I am in the process of writing up a separate issue, which is how we identify the coefficient field, where we can easily do something much better than what we are are doing now (but this is a separate issue from choosing a basis that gives nice q-expansion coefficients).

@sehlen
Copy link
Contributor

sehlen commented May 17, 2016

What do you mean with "identify the coefficient field"? Do you mean finding the lmfdb-label?
Because we do use a custom method using pari that's in the modforms-db repository at computation time and not the one that can be found in the lmfdb code. It builds on Nicolas Mascots pari code that can also be used to make pretty coefficients (if it terminates).

(We save the lmfdb label then in the db).

@AndrewVSutherland
Copy link
Member

@sehlen, see #1386

@AndrewVSutherland AndrewVSutherland added the feature request Feature request label May 30, 2016
@davidfarmer davidfarmer modified the milestones: v1.1, v1.0 Jun 8, 2016
@AndrewVSutherland
Copy link
Member

Addressed by #2717.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CMF Classical modular forms feature request Feature request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants