On 9/24/07, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sure you are right but doing that on my own (and in the next day > or two) is beyond my sage/python capabilities... to start with (and > as these isomorphisms of Weierstrass models are so much simpler than > more general isogenies) I was going to be much more simple-minded and > just have a list [u,r,s,t] of elements on the field of definition of > the curve, with no fancy parent structure.
Also, it wouldn't be that difficult for David Roe or me later to transform whatever you do into something more structural like David Kohel suggests. Whatever you do, it'll have be done under the hood anyways. It's definitely a good idea to keep David Kohel's comments in mind though (this is a general axiom). - William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
