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

Update abvar page #6196

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 15, 2024
Merged

Update abvar page #6196

merged 7 commits into from
Nov 15, 2024

Conversation

roed314
Copy link
Contributor

@roed314 roed314 commented Oct 2, 2024

to show info when hyp_count is known but not jacobian_count. To test, compare

@AndrewVSutherland
Copy link
Member

I'm wondering if it is potentially confusing to have the "hence it is principally polarizable" after "it contains X hyperelliptic Jacobians", since the "hence" is independent of "hyperelliptic". It might be clearer to make the the statement about containing (any sort of) Jacobian, hence PPAV first, then say how many are hyperelliptic.

@roed314
Copy link
Contributor Author

roed314 commented Oct 17, 2024

I tried rewording it; let me know if you think the new version is an improvement (it's a bit wordier).

@AndrewVSutherland
Copy link
Member

Hmm, the statements still seem to have the form "This isogeny class contains the Jacobian of X hyperelliptic curves, hence is principally polarizable, ...", which doesn't address the issue I was concerned about. How about "This isogeny class is principally polarizable and contains the Jacobian of X hyperelliptic curves, ...".

I guess we are happy to call an isogeny class principally polarizable if it contains a principally polarizable AV (this is already implicit in the current wording).

@roed314
Copy link
Contributor Author

roed314 commented Nov 10, 2024

@AndrewVSutherland, I've made the change you suggested. I also added more features, so this now fixes #3310 (by adding new entries to the top of the browse page), adds a bunch of hidden search columns and several new sort orders.

@roed314
Copy link
Contributor Author

roed314 commented Nov 10, 2024

To test, look at the browse page and play around with search columns and sort orders in abelian variety search results.

Before this is merged, we should push av_fq_isog to production.

@AndrewVSutherland
Copy link
Member

Looks good, and I see that @edgarcosta copied av_fq_isog to proddb.

@AndrewVSutherland AndrewVSutherland merged commit a612955 into LMFDB:main Nov 15, 2024
13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants