#10963: Axioms and more functorial constructions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner: stumpc5
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
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: To be merged
public/ticket/10963-doc- | simultaneously with #15801
distributive | Commit:
Dependencies: #11224, #8327, | 23222255c8fba75ac4449ad851428d2a86116a8e
#10193, #12895, #14516, #14722, | Stopgaps:
#13589, #14471, #15069, #15094, |
#11688, #13394, #15150, #15506, |
#15757, #15759, #15919 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:668 darij]:
> I'm done with my sightseeing tour through this branch.
Great, thanks for all the hard work!
> ... but I hope it was nevertheless of use.
No question about that! The documentation was much improved thanks to
your proofreading and suggestions.
> My general impression is that the code introduced in this ticket is
rather good, and it is definitely a worthy addition to Sage
:-)
> (once speed regressions are fixed)
For the record: up to final positive review on #15801, they are.
> Nicolas had good reasons to be annoyed by me raising this dust in a
ticket not really related
Oh well, on this ticket I resigned myself to «Boire le calice jusqu'à
la lie». In any cases, it was not wasted time: you have been a driving
force getting the documentation better. And at the end of the day, I
am quite glad of the side effect of this ticket drawing attention to
the category framework and getting more people well acquainted with
it.
> There's one final commit waiting for one of you,
Reviewed and pushed! Ball on your side :-)
> EDIT: *two* final commits. Seriously. I should learn counting...
As Florent would say: ``there are three kinds of people in the world:
those that can count and those that cannot``.
> and one final question: is
src/sage/categories/examples/hopf_algebras_with_basis.py still up-to-date?
I'm not advocating for deletion, just asking if it is misleading in any
way. While it shares much code with the now-removed group algebra examples
and also is not in `GroupAlgebras`, it isn't necessarily wrong (noone said
it had to be a GroupAlgebra anyway).
Thanks for double checking on this: yes, it still fits its purpose: to
illustrate how one can implement a Hopf algebra "from scratch".
> Thank you once again, and here's hoping for a speedy merge...
You bet :-)
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10963#comment:672>
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.
