On 2016-11-08, slelievre wrote:
> This is a very good question for Ask Sage, would you ask it there?
Why should he? He did ask here. And I, for one, dislike the Ask Sage
pages to the extent that I wouldn't answer questions there.
Cheers,
Simon
--
You received this message because you are subsc
On 9 November 2016 at 00:25, francisco wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been computing modular symbols for distinct curves on the Cremona
> data base.
> But, in a few curves, I recived a WARNING messages like this:
>
> Warning : Could not normalize the modular symbols, maybe all further
> results will b
A bit of numerical analysis (see enclosed Jupyter notebook) proves that
this polynomial has at least two real roots, and quite probably four), one
of them being positive.
This triggers the question : does Sage have built-in facilities for
uncertainty computation ("calcul d'erreurs" in French, b
On 2016-11-08 23:01, quark67000 wrote:
It seems that on 7.4, SageMath has a bad signals.sofile on the Mac version.
No, this problem almost certainly has nothing to do with signals.so
As Volker said, it is https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21772
--
You received this message because you are subs
> > This is a very good question for Ask Sage, would you ask it there?
>
> Why should he? He did ask here. And I, for one, dislike the Ask Sage
> pages to the extent that I wouldn't answer questions there.
>
Interesting. If you have ideas on how to improve it so that you might do
so, plea
Most of the normalisation of modular symbols was introduced by me so let me
comment.
There are currently two ways of computing modular symbols, one using eclib
and the other the native sage implementation. Both are only correct up to a
scaling factor. That is because their main use was as gene
