I think my previous reply to this message got eaten, so I'm sending it again.
On 11 mei, 23:32, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (...) should > > I start with a module over the Symbolic Ring, or is another ring more > > appropriate? > > Have you got anywhere reading the Sage developers guide? > > http://sagemath.org/doc/developer/index.html > > I can understand if you write back and say "I read it, and it doesn't > answer any of these questions". > Well, the Sage developer's guide is excellent (and so is the reference manual), the problem is more my own lack of mathematical rigor (I'm a mathematical physicist) and lack of experience with Sage. For now, I am letting DifferentialForms derive from sage.rings.ring.Algebra and I'm following the design of the quaternionic algebras, since they are the closest to what I need in Sage. Is there any way that I can express the fact that the algebra of differential forms is in the category GradedAlgebras? > > I personally think what you're doing is great. I definitely prefer > something built from scratch like you're doing instead of something > built on top of FriCAS/Maxima/Reduce. > Thanks a lot for the encouragement. As soon as I have something finished, I will put it up for review. Meanwhile, I will also collect the resources that people have posted in this thread, on a Wiki page or so. Sincerely, Joris -- 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
