#10963: More functorial constructions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner: stumpc5
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.1
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: days54 | Merged in:
Authors: Nicolas M. Thiéry | Reviewers: Simon King, Frédéric
Report Upstream: N/A | Chapoton
Branch: | Work issues:
public/ticket/10963 | Commit:
Dependencies: #11224, #8327, | eb7b486c6fecac296052f980788e15e2ad1b59e4
#10193, #12895, #14516, #14722, | Stopgaps:
#13589, #14471, #15069, #15094, |
#11688, #13394, #15150, #15506 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vbraun):
I agree that, as long as you don't try to express relations that combine
mismatched categories/axioms, you shouldn't have to worry about that.
The potential problem with additional relations is that you might have
already constructed distinct categories Rings + division + finite and
Fields + finite. At that point I think its fine to require that Wedderburn
has to restart Sage.
I don't quite understand how Polybori solves this, Z/2Z has only
idempotents but Z/2Z[x] does not. Of course you can add x^2=x as relation
to the ideal. Or just work with square-free / radical ideals. Either way
thats a bit of a technicality that does fit into this analogy.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:413>
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.
