2022-03-23 08:35:42 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2022-01-27 05:06:54 +0200 received badge ● Nice Answer (source) 2021-05-18 21:45:50 +0200 received badge ● Nice Answer (source) 2021-05-05 18:20:37 +0200 commented answer Base of Eigenforms Thanks David for improvng my rather hasty asnwer and for clearing up the follow-up questions. 2021-05-04 08:06:20 +0200 received badge ● Good Answer (source) 2021-05-03 16:38:48 +0200 received badge ● Nice Answer (source) 2021-05-03 12:18:10 +0200 edited answer Base of Eigenforms The solution is to use modular symbols: sage: N=120 2021-05-03 10:07:34 +0200 edited answer Base of Eigenforms The solution is to use modular symbols: sage: N=120 2021-05-03 10:05:14 +0200 answered a question Base of Eigenforms The solution is to use modular symbols: sage: N=120 2021-02-15 19:31:46 +0200 received badge ● Nice Answer (source) 2021-02-15 12:17:05 +0200 answered a question Height of rational points Looking at the code, it seems to me that the functions implementing local and global heights are wrong. The global height of an individual algebraic number is, I think, correct (and I seem to remember that I wrote it) but the height of a point is projective space is certainly not the max of the heights of the coordinates -- for a start that is not well-defined, as already remarked. I'll make a sage trac ticket for this, and may even fix it myself. 2021-02-10 12:04:05 +0200 answered a question Elliptic Curve over finite fields - Irreducibility proof In cidentally, all plane cubics given by Weierstrass equations are irreducible, even when singular. Since elliptic curves in Sage are Weierstrass cubics, the code for E.is_irreducible should just return True without bothering to call the generic irreducibility test. 2021-02-09 14:56:05 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2021-02-09 12:30:03 +0200 answered a question Are results found of an Elliptic Curve by SageMathCell proven? Actually no -- as just explained by me also on Math.Stackexchange! 2021-01-30 16:56:29 +0200 received badge ● Nice Answer (source) 2021-01-22 01:33:42 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2021-01-21 23:29:51 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2020-06-01 11:35:53 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2020-05-29 10:18:09 +0200 commented answer Why is exponentiation of points on elliptic curve so fast? If yo upick random points on E rather than random elements of the abelian group then I think you will find that the time taken is longer. In your code you are only doing group operations in an abstract abelian group (either cyclic or possibly with two cyclic factors) so the operation is just one (or at most 2) integer modular multiplcations. 2020-05-29 10:11:28 +0200 answered a question Elliptic curve defined over completion Sage does have p-adic fields, but no-one has yet implemented completions of number fields at finite places (see K.completeion? where K is a number field). You should still be able to manually construct the apprpriate p-adic field and base-change the elliptic curve to it. Here's an example with a split prime, which is easier: sage: K. = NumberField(x^2 - x + 1) sage: Q7 = Qp(7, prec=20) sage: e1, e2 = K.embeddings(Q7) sage: E = EllipticCurve('389a1').change_ring(K) sage: Q = E.gens(); Q (-1 : 1 : 1) sage: Q.division_points(5) [] sage: E.change_ring(e1)(Q).division_points(5) [(2*7 + 5*7^2 + 3*7^4 + 6*7^5 + 3*7^6 + 4*7^7 + 7^8 + 7^9 + 4*7^10 + 3*7^11 + 4*7^12 + 3*7^13 + 7^14 + 5*7^16 + 4*7^18 + 5*7^19 + O(7^20) : 6 + 3*7 + 7^2 + 4*7^3 + 5*7^5 + 5*7^7 + 2*7^8 + 6*7^9 + 6*7^10 + 3*7^11 + 5*7^12 + 6*7^14 + 5*7^15 + 4*7^16 + 7^17 + 6*7^18 + O(7^20) : 1 + O(7^20))]  2020-05-29 05:22:02 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2020-05-29 05:19:59 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2020-05-28 18:30:59 +0200 answered a question Efficient n-th division polynomial of elliptic curve You can see how division polynomial is implemented using E.division_polynomial??. With just one ? you can see its parameters. The second optional paramater defaults to a variable x. The documentation (which I wrote, I think) says  "x" - optional ring element to use as the "x" variable. If x is None, then a new polynomial ring will be constructed over the base ring of the elliptic curve, and its generator will be used as x. Note that x does not need to be a generator of a polynomial ring; any ring element is ok. This permits fast calculation of the torsion polynomial *evaluated* on any element of a ring.  i.e. in your code you could compute E.division_polynomial(N,z) for each z. 2020-05-28 18:26:10 +0200 answered a question Determining Elliptic Curve Components If P is the generator, use this: sage: P.is_on_identity_component() False  You can also see it with E.plot()+P.plot()! 2020-05-28 18:21:33 +0200 answered a question Calculating the order of an Elliptic Curve fails. In the second example the curve has cardinality 8245498483844445086274997696534494324318871629323439587180432555305925857658038158971493931464052751511244450366220997579222992221013001791913941608268032 which is hard to factor. The computation of the order of a point will be trying to factor it. How would you find the order of the point? Suppose the group order is n=a*b where a and b are primes, but you do not know this factorization, and I give you a point of order a. How could you find that order more easily than factoring n? 2020-05-28 18:15:31 +0200 answered a question Elliptic Curve Twist I don't really understand the problems here. When you write E.quadratic_twist(d) you are defining an elliptic curve which is only defined up to isomorphism, and whose isomorphism class only depends on d modulo squares (assuming characteristic not 2 here). So twisting by d and d/4 give isomorphic curves. The code is written to work well with long as well as short Weierstrass equations. 2020-05-28 18:09:27 +0200 answered a question How to find a CM point with the image in the elliptic curve under modular parametrization given I think that the modular functions giving the modular parametrization (the two power series in q returned by phi.power_series()) will converge very slowly. 2020-05-28 17:57:16 +0200 answered a question Height of point elliptic curve over finite field Heights of points are defined for elliptic curves over globa; fields, e.g. QQ or number fields, not over finite fields. What did you mean by the height of a point on an elliptic curve over a finite field? 2020-05-28 17:53:27 +0200 answered a question How do I obtain the generator of a elliptic curve? Is E.gens() only for the generator for the free part of the group or is for torsion also? E.gens() gives a list of generators for E(Q) modulo torsion. You can get the generators of the torsion subgroup with E.torsion_subgroup().gens(). It would be possible to add an option to E.gens() to include torsion generators. Right now (Sage 9.1) E.gens() is a list while E.torsion_subgroup().gens() is a tuple so it is a bit awkward: sage: E.gens()+list(E.torsion_subgroup().gens()) [(3 : 2 : 1), (-1 : 0 : 1)] ` 2020-05-28 17:46:17 +0200 answered a question Halving Point on curve25519 If E is your elliptic curve and P is a point on E then P.division_points(2) returns a list of solutions Q to 2*Q=P. 2019-06-06 09:56:26 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2018-02-26 17:42:07 +0200 answered a question Isogeny computation for larger numbers doesn't finish In your starting_node function you are constructing points of order 3 but it seems that the function E_i(0).division_points(3) returns points whose order attribute is not set. That should be considered a bug, and probably my fault, certainly fixable. You can get around it rather easily if instead of constructing the isogenies as you do you call the method E_i.isogenies_prime_degree(3) which returns (quickly) a list of all 3-isogenies from E_i. This will include 3-isogenies whose kernel points are not in GF(p) (only their x-coordinates will certainly be), so if that matters you'll need to add a little more. In the code as is Sage is computing the order of the point P before constructing the 3-isogeny, with no clue as to what that order might be or any bound on it, which may well cause the computation of the cardinality of the curve and its factorization. 2017-09-10 10:37:50 +0200 answered a question Compute rank of elliptic curve The above output shows that the rank is at least 7, but mwrank has not finished. Each increase in A gives one more independent point (as shown in the output). The size of B is a power of 2, in this case 2^2 so far indicating another 2 in the rank. It is more efficient to increase one of mwrank's parameters (-x in the command line) as that shifts more of the rank into A away from B. Magma gives the rank as 9 rather more quickly. It uses a different method in this case, the same as that used by E.simon_two_descent() but that does not work here for some reason. The method implemented in mwrank (used by Sage by default) can get slow for elliptic curves with large coefficients since it does some searching and the bounds are large. 2017-04-30 00:50:22 +0200 received badge ● Good Answer (source) 2017-04-13 00:54:31 +0200 received badge ● Nice Answer (source) 2017-01-10 21:57:24 +0200 received badge ● Nice Answer (source) 2017-01-10 17:11:47 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2017-01-10 15:10:01 +0200 answered a question procedure integralpoints produces wrong answer The additional point is found with Sage version 7.5.rc2 so will be there in the next release. There was a bug fix since 7.4. However the MW basis used is the same in each case, with regulator 5.695... and this is also what mwrank gives, with a claim that the given points are saturated. I also just checked by hand that the generators are OK. I think that your diagnosis was put off by a misleading message printed with verbose=True: the curve has 2 real components and there are rational points on the non-identity component (the "egg"). In the algorithm, the first step is to replace the full MW basis with a basis for the index 2 subgroup $E(\mathbb{Q})\cap E^0(\mathbb{R}}$, but this is allowed for later. In fact the bug was quite different, and due to a precision problem which has been fixed. 2017-01-09 15:42:30 +0200 answered a question Memory leak with modular symbols? This is a bug and is being dealt with at https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22164 2016-10-12 18:50:11 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2016-10-06 07:13:34 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source) 2016-10-06 07:13:09 +0200 received badge ● Nice Answer (source) 2016-10-06 07:11:11 +0200 received badge ● Nice Answer (source) 2016-10-01 14:43:09 +0200 answered a question Plotting fundamental domains of modular subgroups from generators and cusp widths By issuing the command "search_src("fundamental_domain") I found several examples to follow all from the modular/arithgroup/farey_symbol module so I suggest looking at that. Probably not a useful answer 4 years later though. 2016-09-30 11:32:08 +0200 received badge ● Enlightened (source) 2016-09-30 11:32:05 +0200 received badge ● Good Answer (source) 2016-09-27 19:07:48 +0200 received badge ● Necromancer (source)