#17096: Implement categories for filtered algebras
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: tscrim | Owner: tscrim
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: filtered algebras | Merged in:
Authors: Travis Scrimshaw | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
public/categories/filtered_algebras-17096|
b29f67e46e18721313330d3a6e116cf3df2eaf8e
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jhpalmieri):
> I'll make those changes. However we can't get a descending filtration
unless the grading set can be negated.
You can get something mathematically equivalent to a descending
filtration, though, and maybe that should be good enough?
I wonder if we should use `degree` for grading and `filtration` for a
filtration: `x.filtration()` would return `n` if `x` is in `F_n` but not
in `F_{n-1}`. For a filtered object, `degree` would default to be
`filtration`, but you could override it in any specific case. (Maybe these
aren't the best names, but you get the idea.)
If this is the first ticket with filtrations, at least in any systematic
way, we can decide how to set it up now rather than having to fix it
later.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17096#comment:38>
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.
