[sage-devel] Re: Difference between the R set and other sets

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 9:36:45 AM UTC+1, Martin R wrote: > > Besides, I somewhat doubt that you want the category of sets - the objects > would be *arbitrary* sets then. I am guessing that you want to consider > only subsets of complex numbers, perhaps together with infinity, right?

Re: [sage-devel] Re: could a category be only infinite? how to implement it?

> > I meant > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23418#comment:5 > > that was due to a bug in the category code That is not in the category code, but the Hom code. Moreover, what is going on is not that methods are not being inherited, but instead that problem is caused by a mismatch

Re: [sage-devel] Re: could a category be only infinite? how to implement it?

On 31/12/2017 18:02, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: Working on #24432, I am faced with the following problem. We have a NumberFields category and a number field is necessarily infinite. Hence it would be natural for NumberFields() to be a subcategory of Sets().Infinite(). What is the proper way to

[sage-devel] Re: Difference between the R set and other sets

> a formal symbolic "element of" function is necessary to represent solver > results from SymPy. The second parameter to it would be a set, i.e., one of > the usual domains used in calculus, or a finite set of numbers. This needs > conversion of sets to the symbolic ring. > > The problem is:

[sage-devel] Re: cvxopt failed to install

On 2017-12-30, Simon King wrote: > Hi! > > As it turns out, building cvxopt's docs requires > 'sphinxcontrib-websupport'. Would it be acceptable to add this to Sage's > sphinx installation? I suppose it is more than just acceptable. Without it, in a Sage shell, even

[sage-devel] Re: Difference between the R set and other sets

Sorry for the noise - it's probably not a bug: class sage.categories.sets_cat.Sets(s=None) The category of sets. The base category for collections of elements with = (equality). This is also the category whose objects are all parents. Martin Am Sonntag, 31. Dezember 2017 09:15:50 UTC+1

[sage-devel] Re: Difference between the R set and other sets

Besides, I somewhat doubt that you want the category of sets - the objects would be *arbitrary* sets then. I am guessing that you want to consider only subsets of complex numbers, perhaps together with infinity, right? Or do you want finite fields, too? Martin Am Sonntag, 31. Dezember 2017

[sage-devel] Re: Difference between the R set and other sets

> > The problem is: "r" (the R interpreter object), as well as other > interpreters, is in the Sets category too, and converting it to symbolic > should raise an error. How can interpreters be differentiated from domain > sets, if not by category? > But why should an interface like "r" or