#10963: More functorial constructions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner: stumpc5
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_info
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.2
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-doc- | Commit:
distributive | c718f218fbc726bf3cf7f4c3f20638c9b0c7eea7
Dependencies: #11224, #8327, | Stopgaps:
#10193, #12895, #14516, #14722, |
#13589, #14471, #15069, #15094, |
#11688, #13394, #15150, #15506 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vbraun):
I think we should avoid non-singleton axioms, which this would require:
{{{
sage: VectorSpaces().FixedBaseRing(GF(p))
}}}
While that would allow us to have only a single base category, you'd still
end up with a different category for each `GF(p)` (and, therefore,
independent joins). But nothing really depends on `p`, you just need to
know that `GF(p)` is a prime. Really, whenever you allow an instance in
the category framework depend directly on user input you'll run into
performance issues when you create categories in a tight loop.
I agree that we should at least have a plan for which direction this is
moving, since it might change the way we specify relations.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:510>
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.
