Hi! On 2013-07-03, anne1.schill...@gmail.com <anne1.schill...@gmail.com> wrote: > MagmaticAlgebras or perhaps AlgebrasOverMagmas or Magma-Algebras (in analogy > to an > R-module) seems to be what you want? > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma_%28algebra%29 > > Otherwise, Travis' suggestion of GeneralAlgebras and GeneralRings would also > be good (if it is explained in the documentation why this name was chosen)!
I don't really like "magma algebra" or "magmatic algebra", but that's mainly because I never heard anyone using this notion before. I'd rather describe an algebra as a module over an appropriate operade than call it "magma algebra". What I'd prefer is very simple: Just say "algebra" to an algebra. If any additional axiom holds, then the algebra should be called commutative, associative, unital, noetherian, lie, finite-dimensional, or whatever you like. But don't mention the *absence* of axioms! The only problem is that this very simple solution is backward incompatible, because unfortunately Algebras() returns the category of *associative* *unital* algebras, in Sage. That's bad. And we would not want to deprecate the "Algebras()" command: Not the command itself should be deprecated, but its current semantic should be deprecated. So, how could a smooth transition be obtained? Best regards, Simon -- 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.
