On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:39:03AM +0200, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > Although, when I first saw Rng in Axiom, I didn't understand why the > programmers used something that looked like an abbreviation. But, in > fact, I somehow like that name. It makes it pretty obvious that the > 'identity' is somehow hidden or non-existent. > > If you don't like Rng, then what about PseudoRing? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-ring
Thanks for the feedback. PseudoRing, is pretty non informative. The NonUnitalRing they also mention is better (though with the usual quirk that a UnitalRing is a NonUnitalRing, but not the converse). > And I am sure you have also found the following for Rig. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-ring > > Compare also > http://books.google.at/books?id=roEx6lkAp10C&dq=Jonathan+S.+Golan,+Semirings+and+their+applications&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=jI4yTSEBOZ&sig=CgCZ_07yz0qI_EUTLs2NAChAVYw&hl=de&ei=n_gcSqnSF4yHsAaQyOzQCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 > Chapter one. > > Looks like a Semiring/Rig is *not* what you originally described as > > >>> - Rig: Ring without 0 > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/bd5d8a5ad2103c57 Silly me, I had never realized that Rig == SemiRing. Without neutral element, you can't have additive inverse! Well, SemiRing is well established (and that's what we used in Sage-Combinat) so we have a name here. Cheers, Nicolas -- Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
