Hi Simon, 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? >
I understand your point and think just Algebras would also be perfect (if it was not for the backward incompatibilty). How about GeneralAlgebras for now and then a deprecation/switch in a later patch? Best, Anne -- 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.
