Timeline for Modular forms reference
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2010 at 17:14 | comment | added | Sean Tilson | +1 for explaining why you don't like Shimura's text, it certainly sounds like that would make it significantly more difficult of a read. | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 14:43 | comment | added | Anweshi | I make apologies in advance for the polemics. But every person has a personal taste, and this is mine. There are people who don't like Shakespeare, though he is very reputed. If you have objections to me, please ignore me as a philistine like one of those guys. | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 14:43 | comment | added | Anweshi | I saw you complaining about Shimura and that is why I pointed this one out. Diamond and Shurman is "too soft" in a sense. But Shimura uses the hopelessly old language for algebraic geometry(Weil's foundations), and is unreadable. Hida has rewritten all that Grothendieck-style in his "Geoemtric modular forms" book; but if anything that is even more of a mess to figure out and is completely unreadable. The Antwerp volumes are by far the best I know of, though a bit old. | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 13:23 | comment | added | user1073 | I really like the proceedings of the Antwerp conference and have found many of the lectures very useful, especially Ribet's (on the Galois Representation associated to a newform) and Eichler's (on the Basis problem). I'll have to check and see if this is covered in one of the volumes. | |
| Jan 2, 2010 at 2:24 | history | answered | Anweshi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |