Skip to content

using pari for elliptic and Eisenstein L-series #40465

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor

@fchapoton fchapoton commented Jul 21, 2025

trying to move away from Dokchitser's auld scripts

  • no longer allowing their use for elliptic curves
  • same in L-function of number fields
  • same in L-function of the modular form Delta
  • trying to get rid of them for Eisenstein L-functions
  • trying to get rid of them for Gross-Zagier L-functions

help welcome !

Note: the handling of general modular forms is best kept for another pull request.

📝 Checklist

  • The title is concise and informative.
  • The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
  • I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
  • I have created tests covering the changes.
  • I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview.

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@JohnCremona : I would appreciate help from Lmfdb and Pari experts on the case of Eisenstein series

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

fchapoton commented Jul 21, 2025

Is this a failure or an improvement ?


File "src/sage/modular/modform/eis_series.py", line 422, in sage.modular.modform.eis_series.?
Failed example:
    L(2)
Expected:
    -5.0235535164599797471968418348135050804419155747868718371029
Got:
    -5.0235535164599799477225675531508296063579361580211036347215

ANSWER: this was a failure

@JohnCremona
Copy link
Member

I'll look but not until Thursday

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

fchapoton commented Jul 22, 2025

now there are some issues with the handling of bit precision..

and more precisely with the number of terms required, that are insufficient to check the functional equation

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am also annoyed because for Eisenstein series the only path I found to relative success was to pass the residue of the uncompleted L-function to pari, instead of the simpler residues of the completed L-function.

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

fchapoton commented Jul 22, 2025

now remains only a failure

Expected:
    -5.0235535164599797471968418348135050804419155747868718371029
Got:
    -5.0235535164599800135315437325373372537800575000382643457910

which is apparently really a failure, as the expected value is

sage: f=zeta(2)*zeta(-17)
sage: f.n(200)
-5.0235535164599797471968418348135050804419155747868718371029

@fchapoton
Copy link
Contributor Author

It seems to me that the handling of precision is still faulty, but I cannot investigate further.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants