#12630: Add representations of quivers and quiver algebras to sage
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: JStarx | Owner: AlexGhitza
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: algebra | Resolution: fixed
Keywords: algebra, quiver, | Merged in:
module, days49 | Reviewers: Simon King, Travis
Authors: Jim Stark, Simon | Scrimshaw
King, Mathieu Guay-Paquet, Aladin | Work issues:
Virmaux | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | Stopgaps:
Branch: |
f3402ef849622e1f5a7d88205c2911ecd6d03ffa|
Dependencies: #12412, #12413, |
#14806, #15491, #15623, #15810 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Thinking twice about my first feelings ... For a quiver
representation, I would also tend to have `base_ring` return QQ above,
and the rep be accordingly in `Modules(QQ)`. So far, in Sage,
`Modules(R)` is about which ring `R` we do the linear algebra with,
compute
bases, etc. Later on we will have a proper hierarchy of categories for
representations (well, I have some stuff in the Sage-Combinat queue),
and then it will be time to put the quiver representations in the
appropriate category of this hierarchy.
The case of `QQ[x]^3` is a bit different, since we really do the
linear algebra over `QQ[x]`.
No strong opinion though ...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12630#comment:274>
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.
