On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:49:41PM +0200, David R. Kohel wrote:
> > Please just edit the wiki page as has been done so far.
>
> OK, I will do that. I can probably return to this Thursday (tomorrow
> I'm busy with teaching).
It would be great to be finished with this part by the end of the
week; then, we would be in good shape for launching the integration.
> In implementation it is rare to have an abstract (free module or)
> vector space without a fixed basis (or something accessed by gens).
We definitely did have quite a few of them in MuPAD, to model things
like "the abstract ring of symmetric functions", which had several
concrete representations, which themselves where in AlgebrasWithBasis
> But it is not clear to me that this should be distinguished as a
> categorical feature, rather than an implementation feature carried
> by the class hierarchy.
I sure see your point. Now, that's how we had done this in MuPAD, and
that's one part of the design I am most confident with because it
never shot back in years of practical experience. And it still felt
good when translated in Sage.
This probably means that we should slightly enlarge the definition of
what Sage categories are supposed to model, in order to take
constructivity more into account.
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-combinat-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-combinat-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-combinat-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
