#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 pbruin):

 Replying to [comment:624 tscrim]:
 > I don't think we should use ''any'' functor, but only forgetful functors
 to derive additional structure. So I'd call the method
 `has_forgetful_functor_to()` and use that to inherit structure. Moreover,
 it would be a nice feature to have coerce maps between categories and I'd
 use the normal mechanism of `_has_coerce_map_from_()` (since functors are
 the morphisms in the category of [concrete] categories right?).
 One problem with the terminology "forgetful functor" is that it is not a
 well-defined notion; see [http://mathoverflow.net/questions/19405
 /definition-of-forgetful-functor].  Moreover, one important example would
 be the inclusion functor of a subcategory (in the mathematical sense),
 which does not actually forget any structure.  So I'm not sure
 `has_forgetful_functor_to()` would be the best name.  (Although I'm also
 not terribly happy with my own idea of using the terminology of coercion
 here.)

 Anyway, as I wrote above, I agree that this belongs to a separate ticket.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:628>
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