When you use the ModularForms constructor to create a space of modular forms, the backend computation of things like Hecke operators is carried out using the ModularSymbols class. Would it make sense to be able to provide the constructor with an optional argument specifying a different backend, such as one of the following? (ModularSymbols would remain as the default.)
-- CremonaModularSymbols is a separate implementation of modular symbols derived from Cremona's code for tabulating modular elliptic curves. -- BrandtModules implements the "method of graphs" operating on ideal classes in a quaternionic order. -- Pari recently added a "method of trace formulas". -- Possibly coming soon: Birch's variant of the method of graphs based on reduction of quadratic forms (see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23342). -- Did I miss something obvious? There are plenty of caveats here. For one, these methods don't all apply at the same level of generality, or offer the same feature set even in cases of overlapping applicability. For another, some of these methods are working with different constructions that produce isomorphic Hecke modules, but not "the same" (i.e., not canonically isomorphic) underlying spaces. Kiran -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-nt" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-nt. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
