Forward to sage-algebra? John
On 6 May 2015 at 20:08, Travis Scrimshaw <tsc...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: > On #15635, we are trying to decide whether we want non-associative algebras > to be included in the catalog of algebras. > > The argument against including them is "most" people think of algebras as > being associative (and maybe even unital), and as such, might surprise > people when they come across the non-associativity in their computations. > > However, the community was at one point considering renaming magmatic > algebras into algebras and having to specify the associative axiom > explicitly. There is also a counterpoint to the argument for not including > non-associative algebras in the catalog in that the naming is clear, it > gives a uniform entry point and easily discoverable, and usually when > someone doesn't know what a particular object is, they look at the > documentation. > > We would like to hear your thoughts on the matter, > Travis > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
