On 2013-11-22 20:52, John Cremona wrote:
On 22 November 2013 17:46, Peter Bruin wrote:
The problem is indeed fixed by applying #13951 (which still needs
reviewing).
As Peter and I are both already authors and reviewers of the patcheson
that ticket, we should probably find a third party to fin
On 22 November 2013 17:46, Peter Bruin wrote:
> The problem is indeed fixed by applying #13951 (which still needs
> reviewing).
As Peter and I are both already authors and reviewers of the patcheson
that ticket, we should probably find a third party to finish the
review.
John
>
> Peter
>
> Op v
The problem is indeed fixed by applying #13951 (which still needs
reviewing).
Peter
Op vrijdag 8 november 2013 17:35:01 UTC schreef John Cremona:
>
> On 8 November 2013 16:11, Georgi Guninski >
> wrote:
> > I am not an expert, but is it normal to get negative canonical
> > height of a point o
On 8 November 2013 16:11, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> I am not an expert, but is it normal to get negative canonical
> height of a point on elliptic curve over number field?
No, this is certainly an error. There is at least one outstanding
patch relating to heights over number fields (#13951) but a
I am not an expert, but is it normal to get negative canonical
height of a point on elliptic curve over number field?
sage: Z1.=ZZ[];Nf.=NumberField(Z**16-2);E=EllipticCurve(Nf,[-87, 504,
-40320, 0, 0]);P=E(0,0)
sage: P.height() #not very fast
-0.150688795814905
sage: P.height(precision=2000)
-0.
