On May 7, 2008, at 5:50 AM, David Kohel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Given algebras A and B, I would return C and the two maps m1: A -> C
>>> and m2: B -> C:
>>
>>> (C, m1, m2) = A.tensor_product(B,ring=R)
>>
>> I might prefer to have something like
>>
>> C = A.tensor_product(B, ring=R)
>>
>> and then
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:50 AM, David Kohel wrote:
> ...
> A good design is very important.
>
> In fact this is a vey generic categorical construction of (a sum or
> coproduct in the category of rings). We should first consider how
> general products and coproducts should be constructed, and set
> A good design is very important.
>
> In fact this is a vey generic categorical construction of (a sum or
> coproduct in the category of rings). We should first consider how
> general products and coproducts should be constructed, and set
> up a common infrastructure and syntax. It needs to b
Hi,
> > Given algebras A and B, I would return C and the two maps m1: A -> C
> > and m2: B -> C:
>
> > (C, m1, m2) = A.tensor_product(B,ring=R)
>
> I might prefer to have something like
>
> C = A.tensor_product(B, ring=R)
>
> and then one can do
>
> C.coerce_map_from(A)
> C.coerce_
On May 4, 2008, at 12:49 PM, David Kohel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Tensor products (of commutative rings) are "necessary" for
> representing the
> coordinate rings of a product of [affine] schemes.
>
> For commutative rings, a new tensor product class imay not be needed
> or desirable, rather what is miss
Hi,
Tensor products (of commutative rings) are "necessary" for
representing the
coordinate rings of a product of [affine] schemes.
For commutative rings, a new tensor product class imay not be needed
or
desirable, rather what is missing currently is the homomorphisms.
Given algebras A and B, I
