#14084: Wrong domain of the fraction field construction functor
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
       Reporter:  SimonKing   |         Owner:  nthiery 
           Type:  defect      |        Status:  new     
       Priority:  major       |     Milestone:  sage-5.7
      Component:  categories  |    Resolution:          
       Keywords:              |   Work issues:          
Report Upstream:  N/A         |     Reviewers:          
        Authors:              |     Merged in:          
   Dependencies:              |      Stopgaps:          
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

Comment (by SimonKing):

 Replying to [comment:3 nbruin]:
 > ... but
 > {{{
 > sage: k=Qp(7)
 > sage: k.category()
 > Category of commutative rings
 > sage: k in Fields()
 > True
 > sage: k.category()
 > Category of fields
 > }}}
 > which is a little uncomfortable in its own right.

 No, this is very important for making the test `k in Fields()` fast
 without caching.

 > You'd think that a category is part of the defining properties of the
 parent, so changing it seems to fly into the face of immutability of
 parents.

 No. It is just "learning more and more about immutable properties of the
 parent".

 > If we have to keep it like this, we'd have to be very clear that one
 should only test if a parent is IN a given category; never rely on the
 category reported by "<parent>.category()".

 Sure. It could always be that the reported category is a subcategory of
 what one wants to have. `R in C` is recommended, but `R.category() is C`
 is not.

 > It certainly flies in the face of what I thought sage did: I thought
 specifying a parent implied specifying the category in which you want to
 consider it, and that if you want to consider a number field as a
 `QQ`-vector space instead, one should explicitly apply a functor and use a
 map (or perhaps conversion if you want to be implicit about it) to go
 between the two.

 I think this is currently not supported.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14084#comment:4>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to