Could you elaborate. I would like to understand why the statement that
"every module is a bimodule" is not acceptable.
In PanAxiom we have
BiModule(R:Ring,S:Ring):Category ==
Join(LeftModule(R), RightModule(S))
Module(R:CommutativeRing): Category == BiModule(R,R)
add
if not(R is %) then x:%*r:R == r*x
What does that have to do with ideal=twosided ideal vs.
submodule!=twosided submodule (or whatever the problem is)?
Ralf
On 10/15/2009 03:16 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:34:46AM -0700, javier wrote:
>> Positive review for algebra_ideals.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> With respect to algebra_modules, we have again the problem of
>> commutativity. Whilst it makes sense to simply say "ideals" for two-
>> sided ideals, this is not the case for modules: I don't know of
>> anybody using "modules" to refer to "bimodules".
>>
>> Any other opinions here?
>
> No opinion myself except lazyness to change without good reason :-)
> In MuPAD/Axiom, Modules(R) was a subcategory of BiModules(R).
> See e.g. http://daly.axiom-developer.org/dotabb.html
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
