#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 nthiery):
Hi!
Back from kids duty (which I made into a backcountry camping getaway:
I am not complaining :-) )!
Replying to [comment:627 pbruin]:
> Hello Nicolas,
> > From the primer:
> (More precisely, from a section of the primer introduced in ''this
ticket''...)
Following a request of Darij on this ticket, though not directly about
this ticket :-)
> Not out of disrespect for the terminology used by Sage and other
computer algebra systems, but the subcategory relation in the mathematical
sense has been called "subcategory" since the 1940s.
Sure! I just wanted to point out that there is already a community of
people that has been using this terminology for a long while; so if a
decision is made to change it, whoever takes on the task in the
corresponding ticket will have to handle backward compatibility and
training.
Maybe it's not so bad after all: in the code the relation appears
essentially under the name "super-category". So if one can accept
super-category as not being the opposite of "sub-category" (I
certainly can), and if there is a good alternative name for
"sub-category" (I just tried a couple online antonym dictionaries, and
so far found nothing better than "inferior"), things should be easy to
change.
> Certainly, I do not want to say that something should be done about it
here and now.
If we can just change the "subcategory" terminology without changing
the current code, let's proceed now. Otherwise, please open a ticket!
> For the moment, in the primer, would it perhaps be an option to just
''document'' that this relation is currently called "subcategory" in Sage
and not attempt to ''justify'' this terminology? (And maybe to consider
rewording the mention of "category purists"; not that I consider myself
one... 8-) )
Feel free to proceed and rework the phrasing to whatever seems
appropriate to you! Please keep the "justification" part in one form
or the other though: it was really meant to point out the relevance of
this hierarchy relation between categories and its natural connection
to object oriented design; not to support the terminology.
> I admit never having used Axiom, MuPAD or GAP, but from browsing the
documentation of those systems, I get the impression that Sage is moving
(or has already moved) far beyond them.
> ...
> Finally, let me stress that I greatly value the work done by you and
other people on this part of the infrastructure of Sage. Please view my
comments as evidence that this infrastructure is important enough to me to
spend some time and energy to discuss the issues involved in "getting it
right".
:-)
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:629>
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.
