Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

gauss_sum mod1 #25127

Closed
nsirolli opened this issue Apr 9, 2018 · 18 comments
Closed

gauss_sum mod1 #25127

nsirolli opened this issue Apr 9, 2018 · 18 comments

Comments

@nsirolli
Copy link

nsirolli commented Apr 9, 2018

The implementation for the Gauss sum for a character chi does include the value chi(0). This is correct for every character except for the character modulo 1. In this case, the output for the Gauss sum equals zero, but it should be 1.

This issue is fixed by adding the value chi(0) to the Gauss sum.

Component: modular forms

Keywords: Gauss sum trivial character

Author: Nicolás Sirolli

Branch/Commit: 6e69aa6

Reviewer: Michalis Neururer

Merged: 8.2.rc1

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25127

@nsirolli nsirolli added this to the sage-8.2 milestone Apr 9, 2018
@nsirolli
Copy link
Author

nsirolli commented Apr 9, 2018

Branch: u/nmsirolli/gauss_sum_mod1

@nsirolli
Copy link
Author

nsirolli commented Apr 9, 2018

Commit: 0ce4c53

@nsirolli
Copy link
Author

nsirolli commented Apr 9, 2018

Changed keywords from none to Gauss sum trivial character

@nsirolli
Copy link
Author

nsirolli commented Apr 9, 2018

Author: Nicolás Sirolli

@nsirolli
Copy link
Author

nsirolli commented Apr 9, 2018

Merged: 8.2.rc1

@nsirolli

This comment has been minimized.

@alexjbest
Copy link
Contributor

comment:3

Wouldn't instead changing the line below to for c in chi.values(): by removing the [1:] have the same effect and be neater?

Also if this is changed gauss_sum_numerical probably should be too.

@sagetrac-mneururer
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mneururer mannequin commented Apr 12, 2018

comment:4

I changed the loop to a loop over chi.values() and also changed gauss_sum_numerical as requested by alexjbest.

@sagetrac-mneururer
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mneururer mannequin commented Apr 12, 2018

Changed branch from u/nmsirolli/gauss_sum_mod1 to u/mneururer/gauss_sum_mod1

@sagetrac-mneururer
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mneururer mannequin commented Apr 12, 2018

Changed commit from 0ce4c53 to d5bc861

@sagetrac-mneururer
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mneururer mannequin commented Apr 12, 2018

Changed author from Nicolás Sirolli to Nicolás Sirolli, Michael Neururer

@sagetrac-mneururer
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mneururer mannequin commented Apr 12, 2018

Changed author from Nicolás Sirolli, Michael Neururer to Nicolás Sirolli, Michalis Neururer

@sagetrac-mneururer
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mneururer mannequin commented Apr 12, 2018

Reviewer: Michalis Neururer

@sagetrac-mneururer
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mneururer mannequin commented Apr 12, 2018

Changed author from Nicolás Sirolli, Michalis Neururer to Nicolás Sirolli

@nsirolli
Copy link
Author

comment:7

Replying to @alexjbest:

Wouldn't instead changing the line below to for c in chi.values(): by removing the [1:] have the same effect and be neater?

Also if this is changed gauss_sum_numerical probably should be too.

This looks neater, but in the final iteration it computes the product z *= zeta, which is not needed. That's why I did not propose this solution.

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Apr 13, 2018

Changed commit from d5bc861 to 6e69aa6

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Apr 13, 2018

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1 and set ticket back to needs_review. New commits:

31fdc6bReverted my changes and corrected gauss_sum_numerical
6e69aa6Improved code

@loefflerd loefflerd mannequin modified the milestones: sage-8.2, sage-8.3 May 17, 2018
@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented May 18, 2018

Changed branch from u/mneururer/gauss_sum_mod1 to 6e69aa6

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants