Hello Sir, I have submitted my proposal. Please review it and let me know necessary updates and improvements.
I want to verify soundness of my approach and extend the proposal for Multivariate Polynomials. Thank You Animesh Shree On Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 12:26:38 AM UTC+5:30 tcscrims wrote: > Mathematically speaking, you can always weaken axioms. However, there are > some extra advantages that additive groups have that commutative semirings > don't have (mainly 0, the additive identity). > > That being said, there isn't anything prevent you from constructing the > appropriate categories. It would be good to have a more specific use-case > in mind, but that isn't necessary. However, one should be careful with the > name because it would conflict with what "most" people would call an > algebra (which is why we have MagmaticAlgebras). > > Best, > Travis > > > On Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 2:57:29 AM UTC+9 anime...@iiits.in wrote: > >> Hello Sir, >> >> I was going through "Algebras" and I had a doubt. >> Does MagmaticAlgebra and AssociativeAlgebra have to be implemented over >> Ring only? >> I went through internet and google uses rings to define those algebras, >> but the axioms that those algebra follow (Unital, Associative) are also >> preserved by commutative semirings. >> Would it be good to define MagmaticAlgebra and AssociativeAlgebra over >> other objects that follow those axioms too or come-up with alternative >> Algebra? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-gsoc" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-gsoc+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-gsoc/54f8fa37-8a5c-4216-a72b-4085f15a8bbbn%40googlegroups.com.
