On 2016-09-01 11:11, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Even if you think that categories belong in the top-level namespace, I
> think it would still be useful to have a catalog such that
> TAB-completion can give a list of all named categories in Sage.
+1 for having a catalog.
--
You received this message
Should we move all categories in a catalog, e.g. rename
FiniteSemigroups
to
categories.FiniteSemigroups
Even if you think that categories belong in the top-level namespace, I
think it would still be useful to have a catalog such that
TAB-completion can give a list of all named categories in
I once collected some amusing examples from Pari, Sage and Magma related to
their different concepts of coercion. It can lead to all sorts of
mathematical stupidity.
I concluded that trying to model maths this way is like trying to put a
carpet down in a room with a wonky floor. You can locally
FWIW that's what Piranha does as well:
polynomial x{"x"};
// This will print "1".
std::cout << std::is_same>::value << '\n';
On 1 October 2015 at 21:35, Bill Page wrote:
> In FriCAS
>
> (1) -> x:Polynomial(Integer)
>Type:
> V
In FriCAS
(1) -> x:Polynomial(Integer)
Type: Void
(2) -> x + 1/2
1
(2) x + -
2
Type: Polynomial(Fraction(Integer))
On 1 October 2015 at 15:28, 'Bill Hart' via
On 1 October 2015 at 15:10, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>> ... Clearly the related? concept of
>> "element" is borrowed from category theory - maybe even topos theory?
>
> Yes, parents and elements are from Magma. To me they have nothing to
> do with
On 1 October 2015 at 20:23, William Stein wrote:
By the way, look at how coercion "works" in Magma:
>
> $ magma
> Magma V2.18-5 Thu Oct 1 2015 16:59:12 on compute3-us [Seed =
> 629019987]
> Type ? for help. Type -D to quit.
> > R := PolynomialRing(IntegerRing());
> > x + 1/2;
>
> >> x + 1/
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> On 1 October 2015 at 14:23, William Stein wrote:
>> ...
>> One other impression you have is that categories were just bolted on
>> by combinatorics people at the end. However, David Kohel and I
>> actually implemented the first round of categor
On 1 October 2015 at 14:23, William Stein wrote:
> ...
> One other impression you have is that categories were just bolted on
> by combinatorics people at the end. However, David Kohel and I
> actually implemented the first round of category-related stuff in Sage
> right at the very, very beginni
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> On 1 October 2015 at 13:07, William Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>>> [Changed thread subject from: Sources of funding - perhaps computer
>>> manufacturers? ]
>>>
>>> What I find hard to swallow is the peculia
On 1 October 2015 at 13:07, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Bill Page wrote:
>> [Changed thread subject from: Sources of funding - perhaps computer
>> manufacturers? ]
>>
>> What I find hard to swallow is the peculiar mix of "parent",
>> "category", and Python data types (c
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Bill Page wrote:
> [Changed thread subject from: Sources of funding - perhaps computer
> manufacturers? ]
>
> What I find hard to swallow is the peculiar mix of "parent",
> "category", and Python data types (class system and inheritance). In
> spite of the available
[Changed thread subject from: Sources of funding - perhaps computer
manufacturers? ]
What I find hard to swallow is the peculiar mix of "parent",
"category", and Python data types (class system and inheritance). In
spite of the available documentation in the category system in Sage, I
really don't
Is there a reason why
sage: ZZ in Posets()
False
sage: QQ in Posets()
False
?
Best
Daniel
--
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..
I still try to understand categories in sage... There is category-argument
in Poset(), but without examples. As a test I run
P = Poset({1:[2,3]}, category=FiniteLatticePosets())
print P.cover_relations()
print P.category()
and got
[[1, 2], [1, 3]]
Join of Category of finite lattice posets and
Dear Sage developers,
In the last two years, I have been progressively redesigning the
category infrastructure to make it scale better (#10963). For a buzz
word, it introduces "axioms", which automatizes part of the
construction of the category hierarchy when there are many variants of
a c
Hello sage-devel,
Schemes and their points are not yet properly embedded in the category
framework. One of the trac tickets listing the issues is
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7946
which mentions that Volker Braun had resolved some of the issues but
some related to elements still r
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 07:33:01PM -0700, David Roe wrote:
>Unfortunately, whenever I write a Python class I've also been very
>frustrated trying to get the class I'm writing to inherit from the
>appropriate element_class. As a consequence I try to write most of my
>elements in Cyt
Elements are supposed to inherit from their category's element_class, but
this requirement is waived for elements that are implemented in Cython.
See the following snippet from
sage.structure.element.Element._test_category (line 495 of element.pyx):
# Tests that self inherits methods from
Hello sage-devel,
(I sent this from my email a couple of hours ago but it hasn't appeared
on the list yet. I am trying again from within Google Groups.
Apologies if it ends up being a duplicate post.)
Schemes and their points are not yet properly embedded in the category
framework. One of th
Hi!
I think I would be able to fix the regression, but I'd like to ask
whether you would object to my approach.
The ticket is #11900.
1. Provide a custom .list() method for both rational and integral
dense vectors. Currently, they use a generic implementation.
I guess you will agree that a custo
Suppose I want to define a new algebra in Sage. What should I do?
- I have followed the nice coercion docs in the reference manual, and
in particular, I've set up _add_, _mul_, etc.; and also
_coerce_map_from_ and _element_constructor_.
- Should I do anything with the new categories framework?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 04:05:29PM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> I actually went to that ticket a bit ago, but didn't see any patch
> attached. I'll certainly review this during Sage days if no one else
> beats me to it.
Excellent!
For the record: all tests passed this night on my machine with
I'm not going to be available until early next week, so it sounds like
someone else will get to it before me.
I'm excited to see it though!
David
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Robert Bradshaw <
rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
> I actually went to that ticket a bit ago, but didn't see any
I actually went to that ticket a bit ago, but didn't see any patch
attached. I'll certainly review this during Sage days if no one else
beats me to it.
- Robert
On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Hi,
Given the recent discussion on adding generic group features,
Hi,
Given the recent discussion on adding generic group features, it was
way time for someone to go one step further: to enable extension types
to inherit code from categories, so that we could at last start to
systematically put generic code in the categories instead of the "old"
abstract
Dear category fans, dear Sage-Combinat developers,
This is my final status report for the category patches:
Yiiippeee!
Mike just merged them today in Sage 4.3-alpha0, together with one year
of hard work worth of feature-full patches around root
Dear category fans,
Latest status report for the category patches:
- They apply smoothly on 4.2.1 alpha0, with all test passing :-)
(This is on a macbook pro ubuntu 9.4 with everything up to
sage-4.3.patch in the Sage-Combinat queue)
Mike: could you please run the tests on a v
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:36:50PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> So, what do we do with the preexisting OrderedSets and OrderedMonoids?
> Does anyone care if we just break backward compatibility by discarding
> them?
>
I guess the current policy is that we should have their __init__
metho
On Oct 13, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> Dear Anne, Dan, William, Florent, Jason, ...
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:10:24AM -0700, Daniel Bump wrote:
>>> The next Sage version will be 4.2. Send me a list of technical
>>> patches with positive review related to categories
Dear Anne, Dan, William, Florent, Jason, ...
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:10:24AM -0700, Daniel Bump wrote:
> > The next Sage version will be 4.2. Send me a list of technical
> > patches with positive review related to categories, and they can be
> > the *first* to go in. I also see 4.2 a
> Is this question addressed to me, or ?
Yes.
Note that the root system patch depends on the category
patches, which why it came in this thread. Various other
long pending patches depend on it.
Dan
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send an email to
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Daniel Bump wrote:
>
>
>> The next Sage version will be 4.2. Send me a list of technical
>> patches with positive review related to categories, and they can be
>> the *first* to go in. I also see 4.2 as being a relatively quick
>> release (compared to the extrem
> The next Sage version will be 4.2. Send me a list of technical
> patches with positive review related to categories, and they can be
> the *first* to go in. I also see 4.2 as being a relatively quick
> release (compared to the extremely long 4.1.2).
Is it possible to conjecture a timetable f
Dear David, dear Javier, dear category fans,
Yippee! the technical patches required by the category code are making
their way into Sage, maybe even in 4.1.2. Then not much remains to be
done, so I am now dreaming of getting the full thing in 4.1.3 (or
whatever the next Sage version will b
As many of us have stated on IRC and elsewhere, lots of us reviewing
the categories stuff got burned out after Sage days and then busy
with lots of other stuff. There's lots of good code here that should
go in, and it's a blocker for much of the sage-combinat stuff as well.
I've just review
>> You know that FriCAS/Aldor does not have this drawback? Eg., the set of all
>> combinatorial species forms a Ring...
A semi-ring, we don't have virtual species yet.
> Thanks for pointing this out. Could you make a quick summary here of
> how this is achieved?
I don't know what Martin refers
Hi Martin,
> You know that FriCAS/Aldor does not have this drawback? Eg., the set of all
> combinatorial species forms a Ring...
Thanks for pointing this out. Could you make a quick summary here of
how this is achieved?
Each combinatorial species is a domain, right? Are they simultaneo
"Nicolas M. Thiery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Very much like in MuPAD. And somehow that's the part I don't like in
> MuPAD. We often wanted to have parents which would simultaneously be
> also elements (e.g. consider a monoid whose elements would themselves
> be monoids, using cartesian produ
> Yes. Here is an example of one of the main ways I intended
> categories to be used in practice.
>
> sage: C = VectorSpaces(GF(5))
> sage: W = (ZZ^3).span([[1,2,3],[4,5,3]])
> sage: C
> Category of vector spaces over Finite Field of size 5
> sage: C(W)
> Vector space of degree 3 and dimension 2
> What is the relationship between "categories" in Axiom and the
> mathematical notion of a category?
None. It is much better to think of categories in Axiom as multisorted
algebras. Or to make it simpler, as a first approach you can think of it
as universal algebras.
A semigroup in Axiom look
> The point I was making is related to Nicolas's suggestion of
> redesigning the category hierarchy to handle additive vs
> multiplicative forms in a different way.
Ah ok. Sorry if I have been unclear, I was merely asking whether
different *names* could possibly be deemed more appropriate by the
Mike,
>On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:21 PM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There are at least two possible paths toward a category hierarchy in Sage,
>> adopting Axiom's version or designing a new one.
>>
>> The key advantage of adopting the Axiom category hierarchy is the Sage
>> system could reu
Dear William,
On 11/09/2008 09:43 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - Are the Sage categories currently used for anything but documenting
>> and testing the mathematical properties of parents?
>
> Yes. Here is an exam
Hi Tim,
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:21 PM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are at least two possible paths toward a category hierarchy in Sage,
> adopting Axiom's version or designing a new one.
>
> The key advantage of adopting the Axiom category hierarchy is the Sage
> system could reuse a
Dear Sage developers,
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The Sage concept of 'parent' is an attempt to capture similar generic
> >> relationships that are represented by categories in Axiom, but I do
> >> not like the fact that this concept needs t
46 matches
Mail list logo
