#10963: More functorial constructions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------+--
Reporter: nthiery |
Owner: stumpc5
Type: enhancement |
Status: needs_work
Priority: major |
Milestone:
Component: categories |
Resolution:
Keywords: |
Work issues: Reduce startup time by 5%. Avoid "recursion depth exceeded
(ignored)". Trivial doctest fixes.
Report Upstream: N/A |
Reviewers: Simon King
Authors: Nicolas M. Thiéry |
Merged in:
Dependencies: #11224, #8327, #10193, #12895, #14516, #14722, #13589 |
Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------+--
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:52 SimonKing]:
> It seems to me that
> {{{
> sage: FiniteFields().super_categories()
> [Category of fields, Category of finite commutative rings]
> }}}
> would be more accurate.
But this would mean constructing a trivial category for finite commutative
rings (there is currently no category code for finite commutative rings).
The point of the axioms infrastructure is precisely to avoid such trivial
categories in the category hierarchy in order to prevent the potential
combinatorial explosion.
Besides: should this be finite commutative rings? Or finite domains? Or
finite euclidean rings? ...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10963#comment:53>
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
