#16239: ZZ in the wrong category
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: tscrim | Owner: sage-combinat
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: integer ring, | Merged in:
category | Reviewers:
Authors: Travis Scrimshaw | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 1b4b7c61d7a6b1c578be283613bf9cc63c7f9b28
public/categories/fix_ZZ-16239 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:13 nbruin]:
> Replying to [comment:11 tscrim]:
> > Plus if we ignore this, we could make a category for char 0 fields,
which IMO is a useful distinction and we make as a join `Fields() &
Sets().Infinite()`
> ??? Infinite fields are not necessarily of characteristic zero, see for
instance `FieldOfFractions(GF(q)['t'])`.
However what I said is all fields of characteristic 0 are fields and
infinite sets (as we can always add 1 more).
> It could be something like `Fields() & AssociativeAlgebras(QQ)`,
although implementation dictates we should avoid referencing parametrized
bases for categories whenever possible (this case wouldn't be so bad,
since QQ just a single object. It's when characteristic p fields are made
as `Fields() & AssociativeAlgebras(GF(p))` that we have a problem.)
Hmmm...that's an interesting idea. Nicolas, how feasible would that be?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16239#comment:14>
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.
