#10963: More functorial constructions
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: stumpc5
nthiery | Status: needs_work
Type: | Milestone:
enhancement | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: | Reviewers: Simon King
categories | Work issues: Reduce startup time by 5%. Avoid
Keywords: | "recursion depth exceeded (ignored)". Trivial
Authors: | doctest fixes.
Nicolas M. Thiéry | Dependencies: #11224, #8327, #10193, #12895,
Report Upstream: N/A | #14516, #14722, #13589
Branch: |
Stopgaps: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:58 SimonKing]:
> Or perhaps rather `Rngs().Division()`, because we ask for inverses for
all non-zero elements, hence `Division()` requires a category that has a
notion of a zero and is at the same time a multiplicative monoid.
Yes; and pushing your argument to its conclusion that could even be
DistributiveMagmasAndAssociativeMagmas().AdditiveUnital().Division().
I guess DivisionRing will do for now.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:62>
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.
