#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 nbruin):
Replying to [comment:515 SimonKing]:
> Only when we have a pure categorical construction that is independent of
any specific parent would we need the category to know about a specific
base ring.
Yes, the only thing I can think of at this time is where you want to
represent, e.g., the tensor map, assigning to a pair of vector spaces
(over the same base!), the tensor product of the two. The domain and
codomain of that map would have to be categories with specified base.
If we end up needing categories with specified base in some cases, we may
even be able to resolve the "V in VectorSpaces(Rationals())" without
having to mess with the MRO: we could just do that test by comparing the
registered base on both.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:516>
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.
