#19473: FiniteDimensionalAlgebra.is_unitary is not sufficient
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: darij | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.10
Component: algebra | Resolution:
Keywords: finite- | Merged in:
dimensional algebra, linear | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
algebra | Work issues: clear up
Authors: Darij Grinberg, | associativity requirement; if
Travis Scrimshaw | necessary, change superclass and
Report Upstream: N/A | is_unitary method
Branch: | Commit:
public/algebra/finite_dim_algebra_fixes-19473|
0cfe0366fc527d2f692c835be3d40f60aa61c471
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by darij):
* work_issues: =>
clear up associativity requirement; if necessary, change superclass
and is_unitary method
Comment:
OK, now I am lost. `FiniteDimensionalAlgebra` inherits from `Algebra`,
which in turn inherits from `Ring`. The test suite of `Ring` has
associativity, which makes me suspect that rings are supposed to be
associative. But the design of `FiniteDimensionalAlgebra` makes it clear
that associativity is optional, and the docstrings contain examples of
non-associative algebras (which still pass their test suites since
`some_element` returns just a 1-element list). So should they be
associative or not?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19473#comment:11>
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.
