Opened 9 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#10453 closed defect (fixed)
Problem with old submodule
Reported by: | davidloeffler | Owned by: | craigcitro |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-4.7.2 |
Component: | modular forms | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Merged in: | sage-4.7.2.alpha3 | |
Authors: | David Loeffler | Reviewers: | Johan Bosman |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Weird things happen if you try to compute the old submodule of a Gamma1 modular forms space. E.g.
sage: CuspForms(Gamma1(11), 2).old_submodule() # crashes
This turns out to be because:
sage: ModularForms(Gamma1(11), 2).hecke_module_of_level(1).hecke_module_of_level(11) Modular Forms space of dimension 2 for Congruence Subgroup Gamma0(11) of weight 2 over Rational Field
so the degeneracy level-raising map is getting computed for the wrong space!
Prerequisite for #11601. (Note that #11601 depends on a bunch of other stuff as well, but this ticket is independent of any of the other patches in the series.)
Apply trac_10453_gamma1_old_submodule.patch to the Sage library.
Attachments (1)
Change History (11)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
Changed 9 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by
Depends on #8716
comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:6 follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 8 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Johan Bosman
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
The code looks sound and is well documented. All long doctests pass. I played around with it and couldn't produce any false results. I did get the following while applying the patch:
applying trac_10453_gamma1_old_submodule.patch patching file sage/modular/hecke/ambient_module.py Hunk #10 succeeded at 883 with fuzz 1 (offset 6 lines). now at: trac_10453_gamma1_old_submodule.patch
but according to this discussion, fuzz 1 is okay. Hence: positive review. ;).
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 ; follow-up: ↓ 8 Changed 8 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
Replying to johanbosman:
I did get the following while applying the patch:
applying trac_10453_gamma1_old_submodule.patch patching file sage/modular/hecke/ambient_module.py Hunk #10 succeeded at 883 with fuzz 1 (offset 6 lines). now at: trac_10453_gamma1_old_submodule.patch
but according to this discussion, fuzz 1 is okay. Hence: positive review. ;).
In this case, you could re-export the patch and upload the rebased version.
IMHO one should inspect any fuzz anyway.
comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 ; follow-up: ↓ 9 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to davidloeffler:
I have inspected the fuzz, which is caused by patch #10664 having gone in since this was written. It is not a problem; the issue fixed by #10664 is completely orthogonal to this one.
Thanks, I hadn't [yet].
comment:10 Changed 8 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.7.2.alpha3
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
patch against 4.6.1.alpha3 + #8716