Hi Travis, On 2015-05-06, Travis Scrimshaw <tsc...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: > We would like to hear your thoughts on the matter,
I wouldn't like so much to denote something as "non-bla" (where "bla" can be associative, commutative, unital, finite, ...), when "non-bla" just means "not necessarily bla". So, please don't name them "category of non-associative algebras". I'd prefer to name them "category of magmatic algebras". Sure, I once learnt that an "algebra" is not necessarily associative. Just think of Lie algebras. On the other hand, I wouldn't go as far as saying that our notion of Algebras() should change, because Algebras() in Sage has always included "associative unital". Changing that would be backwards incompatible. I'd be fine with having MagmaticAlgebras(), and keeping Algebras() as a synonyme of MagmaticAlgebras().Associative().Unital(). Best regards, Simon -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
