Timeline for Effective detection of CM modular forms
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Dec 6, 2012 at 9:36 | answer | added | Stephan E. | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 20:52 | comment | added | Rob Harron | @Matt Young: Yup, it's there, in section 5.8 (where your $q$ is my $N$). There's an absolute constant $C$ lying around, but maybe if I traced back everything I could explicitly compute it. Thanks. | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 20:45 | vote | accept | Rob Harron | ||
| Sep 18, 2011 at 20:12 | comment | added | Matt Young | Assuming GRH for Rankin-Selberg L-functions allows you to distinguish a modular form from very few terms in its Fourier expansion, on the order of $(\log k q)^2$. This should be in Chapter 5 of Iwaniec-Kowalski but I don't have the book on hand. | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 20:00 | answer | added | Laie | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 19:41 | answer | added | Kevin Buzzard | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 19:08 | comment | added | Dror Speiser | Well, the form itself is completely determined by the first $O(kN^3)$ (or something like that) coefficients... | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 18:31 | history | asked | Rob Harron | CC BY-SA 3.0 |