#15801: Categories over a base ring category
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Nicolas M. Thiéry | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues: doc-pdf
Branch: | Commit:
public/categories/over-a-base- | dcb11d850530d23e1d8867daa84ade0e04d7ce15
ring-category-15801 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: #10963, #16275 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by nthiery):
Replying to [comment:58 SimonKing]:
> I think the quiver issue should be discussed here.
Ok.
> Nicolas, do you agree with Darij that quiver representations over QQ
should live in `Modules(QQ)`, not in `Modules(QuiverAlgebra)`? If this is
so, then hopefully it will be easy to switch.
No strong opinion either way, but yes, I would lean in this direction
since we don't have yet a proper category hierarchy for
representations. So in the mean time, it makes sense to reserve
`Modules(K)` for what we have used it so far: doing linear algebra
over K, ...
If it makes it easier to switch, so much the better :-)
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15801#comment:59>
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.
