Dear category fans,
Thanks everybody for your feedback in this discussion! Let me try to
make a synthesis.
(1) In the long run, Algebras(R) should match with Wikipedia's
definition and not assume any axiom: an algebra A is an R-module
with a binary multiplication which is
Dear all,
While working on an implementation of finite algebras over fields (#12141)
I was slightly annoyed by the fact that Algebras are currently assumed to
be unital. I agree with Simon King's opinion:
I don't really like magma algebra or magmatic algebra, but that's
mainly because
I
On 2013-07-04, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
--=_Part_6640_25172370.1372980267137
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
+1 for switching Algebras to CommutativeUnitalAlgebras (or so) and the
using Algebras for the most general algebra.
++
all these magma or generic
Hi Dima,
On 2013-07-05, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, I don't understand why Algebras has to be in the global namespace.
I've never once found it useful to start an interactive session by
instantiating a new category.
+1
(although full-time category theorists might
On Jul 5, 2013 7:13 AM, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi Dima,
On 2013-07-05, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, I don't understand why Algebras has to be in the global
namespace.
I've never once found it useful to start an interactive session by
instantiating a
Hi Franco,
On 2013-07-05, Franco Saliola sali...@gmail.com wrote:
I like the idea of being able to do
categories.tab
and seeing a list of the available categories (or some reasonable subset
of).
... which would not require them being inserted into the global
namespace, AFAIK.
For
On Friday, July 5, 2013 7:33:49 AM UTC-4, Franco Saliola wrote:
categories.tab
That would be nice, too. Then you don't get useless (for interactive use)
categories showing up when you use tab-completion to search for
non-category stuff but you can still write doctests without having to
On Jul 5, 2013 7:41 AM, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi Franco,
On 2013-07-05, Franco Saliola sali...@gmail.com wrote:
I like the idea of being able to do
categories.tab
and seeing a list of the available categories (or some reasonable subset
of).
... which would
On 2013-07-05, Franco Saliola sali...@gmail.com wrote:
--089e0112cf9a05cdd104e0c5e9eb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Jul 5, 2013 7:41 AM, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi Franco,
On 2013-07-05, Franco Saliola sali...@gmail.com wrote:
I like the idea of being
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 08:43:06PM +, Simon King wrote:
What I'd prefer is very simple: Just say algebra to an algebra. If
any additional axiom holds, then the algebra should be called
commutative, associative, unital, noetherian, lie, finite-dimensional,
or whatever you like. But
+1 for switching Algebras to CommutativeUnitalAlgebras (or so) and the
using Algebras for the most general algebra.
In fact, I don't understand why Algebras has to be in the global namespace.
I've never once found it useful to start an interactive session by
instantiating a new category. The
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 03:21:34PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new
category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital.
This is a call for suggestions and votes for a good name for it.
On a similar note:
Hey Nicolas,
For the category of non-unital rings, how about Rngs? (I'm half joking.)
Somewhat more serious, GeneralAlgebras/GeneralRings? I think overall we
should be consistent between rings and algebras. On the math side of
things, doesn't a ring in general has to be distributive; if so,
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 06:47:12AM -0700, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
For the category of non-unital rings, how about Rngs? (I'm half joking.)
Actually that joke, for good or bad, is what's already been
implemented in successively Axiom, MuPAD, and Sage :-) They even had
Rigs. And Rgs.
But
Le 03/07/2013 15:38, Nicolas M. Thiery a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 03:21:34PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new
category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital.
This is a call for suggestions and
On 7/3/13 6:21 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Dear category fans,
One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new
category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital.
This is a call for suggestions and votes for a good name for it.
- ``Algebras``:
Hi!
On 2013-07-03, anne1.schill...@gmail.com anne1.schill...@gmail.com wrote:
MagmaticAlgebras or perhaps AlgebrasOverMagmas or Magma-Algebras (in analogy
to an
R-module) seems to be what you want?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma_%28algebra%29
Otherwise, Travis' suggestion of
Hi Simon,
I don't really like magma algebra or magmatic algebra, but that's
mainly because
I never heard anyone using this notion before. I'd rather describe an
algebra as a
module over an appropriate operade than call it magma algebra.
What I'd prefer is very simple: Just say algebra
18 matches
Mail list logo
