On Aug 28, 5:38 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery" <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr> wrote:
> What remains to be done is to find a good set of names to distinguish > between the two feature sets. > > - The ambiguity is mostly for direct sum, right? I think so. > - Are there (useful) cases where the direct product of a subcategory > of Sets does not coincide with the cartesian product on the > underlying sets? Not that I can think of right now. > - There could be some ambiguity for tensor product which is often > used as an alias for cartesian product for graphs, crystals, ... > But those are not subcategories of VectorSpaces/Modules. So it > would not be an issue to have a similar alias in Sage. That sounds okay to me. I think that "cartesian_product" is a good, unambiguous (I think) name for the set construction. "direct_sum" and "direct_product" are maybe okay, while definitely "coproduct" and possibly "product" should be reserved for the category-level operation. John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
