Hey Nicolas, For the category of non-unital rings, how about Rngs? (I'm half joking.) Somewhat more serious, GeneralAlgebras/GeneralRings? I think overall we should be consistent between rings and algebras. On the math side of things, doesn't a ring in general has to be distributive; if so, then I think (distributive) non-* rings should be called *Rings and non-distributive things should be MultiplicativeAndAdditiveMagmas (or maybe AdditiveAndMultiplicativeMagmas). Also do we want/have a category for skew fields (a.k.a. division rings)?
Best, Travis On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 3:38:00 PM UTC+2, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 03:21:34PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > > One of the features introduced by the category patch #10963 is a new > > category for algebras that are not necessarily associative nor unital. > > This is a call for suggestions and votes for a good name for it. > > On a similar note: this ticket also introduces a category for sets > (E,+,*) where (E,+) is an additive magma, (E,*) is a magma, and * > distributes over +. In other words a ring with no axiom whatsoever but > distributivity. In the current patch, this category is dubbed > DistributiveMagmasAndAdditiveMagmas, by lack of creativity ... > > Better suggestions welcome! > > In the longer run, I'll also need a name for the same category, > without the distributivity axiom. > > Cheers, > Nicolas > -- > Nicolas M. Thi�ry "Isil" <nth...@users.sf.net <javascript:>> > http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
