#10963: Axioms and 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:  merge with #15801
  public/ticket/10963-doc-           |  once things stabilize
  distributive                       |       Commit:
   Dependencies:  #11224, #8327,     |  ce2193e9d6f179d2d51812c6af002697ccfbaa8c
  #10193, #12895, #14516, #14722,    |     Stopgaps:
  #13589, #14471, #15069, #15094,    |
  #11688, #13394, #15150, #15506,    |
  #15757, #15759, #15919             |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by SimonKing):

 Replying to [comment:619 pbruin]:
 > I strongly support your opinion.  An example that annoys me a lot
 (already present before this ticket) is
 > {{{
 > sage: C = Sets(); D = Groups()
 > sage: D.is_subcategory(C)
 > True  # expected False
 > }}}
 > In my humble opinion, either this should return `False`, or the name
 `is_subcategory()` should be changed so that it does not go against the
 established meaning of the notion of subcategory.

 I don't get what you mean. Are you arguing that groups aren't necessarily
 sets? Sure, all what we need is an object G together with a (inversion)
 morphism G->G and a (multiplication) morphism GxG->G.

 Would it be difficult to fix that, by removing `Sets()` from the list of
 super-categories in all places where it is not requested by mathematical
 axioms? I don't think so.

 But then, we must not forget that "parents" in Sage's notion are objects
 in some category containing elements. In other words, parents *are* sets.
 Hence, the category for each implemented group in Sage would then
 necessarily change from `Groups()` to `Groups()&Sets()`.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:620>
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/d/optout.

Reply via email to