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
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
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
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,
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
>> 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
30 matches
Mail list logo
