On November 9, 2006 10:23 AM Martin Rubey wrote: > > I'll write something up as soon as possible. But this won't be > before November~19, since I'm under pressure until then.
Ok. > > However, I talked a bit with Ralf about this before the axiom > workshop, and then I think he was more interested in graphs as > datastructures, which doesn't interest me at all. > > I'm into Matroids, Simplicial Complexes, Graphs, Digraphs, > Polytopes etc. I have thought only about Categories, not > implementations. I think one of the neat things about Axiom is that it is usually not necessary or even desirable to make a distinction between data structures and mathematical structures. Data structures are just another kind of "mathematical" object. For example, is an Axiom set, i.e. a member of the domain Set, a data structure or a mathematical structure? Should we call the domain Set a mathematical structure or only the category SetCategory to which it belongs? And of course not everything that we would like to call a set in Axiom is finite. Essentially the only requirement of SetCategory is that the domain has equality and inequality. I think a Graph in Axiom has to be something nearly as fundamental as a Set. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
