show explicit formulas in documentation of WeierstrassIsomorphism

[yyyyx4]

Currently, the WeierstrassIsomorphism class doesn't actually specify how the isomorphism given by a tuple (u,r,s,t) is defined.
While this is fairly standard, it can't hurt to make it more explicit in the documentation, hence this very simple patch.

(The related baseWI class does show the coordinate transform, but it's written in the form corresponding more easily to the inverse isomorphism, and the change in curve models is not shown.)

Component: elliptic curves

Author: Lorenz Panny

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34439

[sagetrac-git]

Changed commit from bdc3acf to 7e5829a

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

7e5829a

add explicit formulas to documentation of WeierstrassIsomorphism

[kwankyu]

comment:4

Sage documentation does not show the docstring of the class __init__ method. Hence your additional documentation reads incomplete. See

https://7e5829a3e3def0e2863ffb3edb2c324be073d1ac--sagemath-tobias.netlify.app/reference/arithmetic_curves/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/weierstrass_morphism.html#module-sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.weierstrass_morphism

I suggest to move the docstring of __init__ to the class docstring and combine with your docstring (except TESTS blocks). You can use the class ProjectiveCurve

https://github.com/sagemath/sage-prod/blob/develop/src/sage/schemes/curves/projective_curve.py

as a template.

As I skim through elliptic curves modules, I see that many of them need similar edits.

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

11e8992	add explicit formulas to documentation of WeierstrassIsomorphism
a8082ce	lift documentation from .__init__() to class and tweak

[sagetrac-git]

Changed commit from 7e5829a to a8082ce

[yyyyx4]

comment:6

Thanks for pointing that out. Is it better now?

[mkoeppe]

Removed branch from the issue description because it has been replaced by PR #34967