PS:
On 2015-11-28, Simon King wrote:
> On 2015-11-28, Jonas Jermann wrote:
>> What if it is inconvenient to define multiplication in terms of the
>> basis (e.g. what if we don't want to work with a basis unless it is
>> really necessary)?
>>
>> What if we have infinite dimensional spaces but m
Hi Jonas,
On 2015-11-28, Jonas Jermann wrote:
> What if it is inconvenient to define multiplication in terms of the
> basis (e.g. what if we don't want to work with a basis unless it is
> really necessary)?
>
> What if we have infinite dimensional spaces but multiplication can
> still be define
What if it is inconvenient to define multiplication in terms of the
basis (e.g. what if we don't want to work with a basis unless it is
really necessary)?
What if we have infinite dimensional spaces but multiplication can
still be defined (without using a basis)?
Best
Jonas
On 28.11.2015 20:4
> > Or what is the "modern" approach/solution for this?
>
> It is possible to do everything based on
> sage.combinat.free_module.CombinatorialFreeModule. It is a clean
> mathematical approach (for defining something like a multiplication on
> a module, it is enough to define what happens on a
Hi Jonas,
On 2015-11-27, Jonas Jermann wrote:
> It sometimes makes sense to view (homogeneous) elements of a graded
> ring as module elements (because operations might be specific to that
> module and not to the whole ring).
>
> On the other hand we still want to be able to multiply those *modul
