Display the L-function factors

[edgarcosta]

With the new standard for the (analytic) Lhash function we should be aim to display its the L-function factors as it is done in Dedekind zeta functions see:
http://beta.lmfdb.org/L/NumberField/4.0.189.1/

However, we should be pointing at, L/Lhash and not L/<url for a possible origin>. (this depends on #2268)

[davidlowryduda]

That makes sense. When I added the factors to the properties bar (now in #2246), I hadn't noticed that we did this for a class of L functions already. Using \rho_{<object label} is a good thought that readily generalizes.

[edgarcosta]

I agree, but sometimes it will not be clear which one is the right label to pick. For example, L/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/256.1/a/ has four possible labels, and 8 possible origins:
Isogeny class 2.0.11.1-256.1-a
Isogeny class 2.0.11.1-256.1-b
Isogeny class 2.2.44.1-16.1-a
Isogeny class 2.2.44.1-16.1-c
Bianchi modular form 2.0.11.1-256.1-a
Bianchi modular form 2.0.11.1-256.1-b
Hilbert modular form 2.2.44.1-16.1-a
Hilbert modular form 2.2.44.1-16.1-c

[davidlowryduda]

Yes, the lack of a canonical label is unfortunate, and unrectifiable. I wonder what would be a good alternative? We would want to display something of the form L(s, ?). It doesn't seem practical to me to list all possibilities.

Is choosing any label (perhaps the first label in the list?) a bad idea? To then see where else this L-function appears, one would have to click on it and then check the origins on that page.

[davidfarmer]

There is a proposal for labeling L-functions, purely as an L-function. It encodes more meaningful information than the Lhash. I think I wrote that up once. I'll look.

…

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, David Lowry-Duda wrote: Yes, the lack of a canonical label is unfortunate, and unrectifiable. I wonder what would be a good alternative? We would want to display something of the form L(s, ?). It doesn't seem practical to me to list all possibilities. Is choosing any label (perhaps the first label in the list?) a bad idea? To then see where else this L-function appears, one would have to click on it and then check the origins on that page. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.[AAM6LIdwVj9z9nd4AnlqTrP1XHX6BKHGks5shq3RgaJpZM4PUuYC.gif]

[davidlowryduda]

@davidfarmer Did you happen to find your proposal for labeling L-functions as an L-function?

[AndrewVSutherland]

This issue is duplicated by #2653. I think the discussion on that issue is more current so I am closing this one. We are all agreed that we want to show the factorization of imprimitive L-functions and that we need a way to refer to L-functions in an origin-independent way (there is a proposal for how to do this that is currently under discussion, see #2876).