I think it would be more useful to represent functors as unevaluated objects. That way, you can manipulate them on abstract category objects, which may actually represent infinite categories.
See also this issue https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/17964 Aaron Meurer On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 6:37 AM Vatsal Srivastava <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been reading the category theory module, and I found that functors have > not been implemented yet. I propose to do this during Phase 1 of the GSoC > project. > > I was wondering if we should implement it as simply an object that stores two > dicts, one would be a map between objects of two categories, and the other > one would be a map between morphisms of the same two categories. These maps > would have to be supplied as parameters while creation of the object. > > This class could then have derived classes like one for Linearization > Functors, in that case we needn't supply the map or the other category (the > codomain), but we would have to supply a field over which the linearization > would be done. > > Suggestions are most welcome. > And please tell me if I should include some more work in Phase 1. As soon as > I get more idea about how I can implement these, I can propose the work in > the remaining phases too. > > Thanks, > Vatsal Srivastava. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CANr2OynjRj8kMD6GszQwyMd_SyusVONJP5rL2ooCCf9qfKPtZQ%40mail.gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAKgW%3D6LHr7fjcL1K13pamjajxpRF6Dw%3D4DFkT6enV8HrNVUd3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
