#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):
Burying a post in a long thread titled "RFC: a good name the category of
algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital" or a poll
whether that is an acceptable performance impact does not constitute an
announcement in my book. For the SEP process at work, see e.g. the git
transition http://wiki.sagemath.org/WorkflowSEP (wiki search will net you
more info)
Replying to [comment:420 nthiery]:
> As for the ``fundamentally flawed extra_super_categories()
> interface''. It's not about relations in an algebra. It's about a
> completion computation in a lattice.
I know. Binomial ideals are closely related to lattice ideals. It appears
to be commutative algebra, but you actually never form non-trivial
polynomials.
Still, my point that you can't expect to arrive at the normal form by
removing axioms at each step remains. So just listing supercategories is
not a good way of supplying relations, you need a way to get a handle on
all relations (without having to instantiate all categories on startup).
> Alternatively, we can spend a couple days discussing step by step the
details.
Please do, I'm interested in what you think is "likely unimplementable" in
my proposal or how you are going to go about name conflicts in yours. I
hate open-ended discussions at least as much as you. And I'm more than
willing to push this forward, but I have to be convinced that I'm not
pushing the car into a ditch...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:421>
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.
