Dear Gaby, "Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem I had is that I wanted to use a LeftFreeModule, but only a > FreeModule is available. So I decided to cook one. That should be easy. In > addition, the lack of facility to specify `coordinates' was really very > annoying. I wrote (simplifying) > > > )abbrev domain LFREEMOD LeftFreeModule > LeftFreeModule(R: Ring, S: OrderedSet): > Join(LeftModule R, IndexedDirectProductCategory(R,S)) with > linearCombination: List Pair(R,S) -> % > == IndexedDirectProductAbelianGroup(R,S) add > Rep == List Pair(R,S) I think the preceding two lines are the important ones. If you just remove IndexedDirectProductAbelianGroup(R,S), all works well. (I guess that this is not what you want, though. You probably want to inherit some operations implemented in IndexedDirectProductAbelianGroup) So, my question is: how would you interpret an operation that is inherited from IndexedDirectProductAbelianGroup(R,S), when the representations are incompatible as they are here? I think, A add B is (currently) only well defined when the value of Rep in A and B is the same. (well, at least roughly the same.) I admit that I do not understand (yet) why > my `*' was not being picked if I test with R=Integer. Rather the one from > IndexedDirectProductAbelianMonoid was being used, yet my coerce to OutputForm > was used for printing I'd like to. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
