Hi Bill, On 2015-10-01, Bill Page <bill.p...@newsynthesis.org> wrote: >> I would expect that somebody who doesn't know category theory (the >> mathematical area) would find the category framework in Sage very >> confusing, just like somebody who doesn't know calculus might find the >> symbolic functionality confusing. > > No, I find the Sage implementation of these ideas confusing, or at the > very least overly complicated.
Indeed, when William states that someone who doesn't know category theory mathematically might find Sage's category framework confusing, one can as well state: Someone who has a profound knowledge about the mathematical implications of category theory will be very confused by how Sage's category framework works. I am attending the annual meeting of a priority programme of German science foundation, and there has also been a talk about CAP. It seems to me that they really mean business with a constructive approach towards category theory: When the user provides a construction algorithm for each existence quantor appearing in the axioms (say, given a morphism one has functions returning the kernel and its embedding into the domain, and a function that returns, for each test object, the morphism whose existence is granted by the universal property of the kernel), then CAP will help you with things like connecting homomorphisms or spectral sequences. When I first encountered Sage's category framework, I expected to see something similar to what we now have in CAP, but it has in fact a rather different flavour and purpose. 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/d/optout.
