#15801: Categories over a base ring category
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
       Reporter:  nthiery            |        Owner:
           Type:  enhancement        |       Status:  needs_review
       Priority:  major              |    Milestone:  sage-6.2
      Component:  categories         |   Resolution:
       Keywords:                     |    Merged in:
        Authors:                     |    Reviewers:
Report Upstream:  N/A                |  Work issues:
         Branch:                     |       Commit:
  public/categories/over-a-base-     |  0397865de0a1b9636b7501f0d666f08473b148fb
  ring-category-15801                |     Stopgaps:
   Dependencies:  #10963             |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by tscrim):

 Replying to [comment:23 nthiery]:

 Okay, I'm happy as long as we're getting things like this:
 > {{{
 >    Modules(Groups().Algebras(Groups().Algebras()))
 > }}}
 for things like `(QQ[G])[H]` where `G,H` are groups.


 > One thing is that each module M in Sage has a distinguished "base ring".
 > <digression>
 > In particular, M can't be in {{{Modules(R)}}} and in {{{Modules(S)}}}
 > simultaneously; this can be seen as a limitation of the current
 > category framework; no other CAS found a good solution to that
 > though
 > </digression>

 <digressing as well>This might improve as (if) we implement coercions
 between categories.</digressing as well>

 > So, if I have two modules M and N, Hom(M,N) actually depends on this
 > distinguished base ring (they should have the same!).
 >
 > If I build M and N as R-modules, and M' and N' as S-modules, the fact
 > that they all belong to the same category only means that the code to
 > handle and compute the homsets will be the same, not that the homsets
 > Hom(M,N) and Hom(M',N') themselves will be the same.

 Ah, I see. You ''must'' construct new modules M' and N' in order to
 consider morphisms as S-modules. I'm good with everything (conceptually).

 Simon, Nils, (or anyone else,) did either of you verify Nicolas' above (or
 have any objections)?

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15801#comment:25>
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