On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 02:44:06AM -0800, Volker Braun wrote:
>One problem is that we don't have toric morphisms implemented yet (Though
>the convex geometry FanMorphism is done). Partly because I have no idea
>how the category framework should be used to implement them. So we can't
>
One problem is that we don't have toric morphisms implemented yet (Though
the convex geometry FanMorphism is done). Partly because I have no idea how
the category framework should be used to implement them. So we can't
implement the summand_projection yet.
Is there anything wrong with just over
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 06:38:57PM -0800, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> There was a short discussion about it some time ago:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/7123d76d7f2d0519/e0423cb0b000526f
> with William stating that we do consider schemes as sets in Sage.
Ok. If,
Hi Nicolas,
On Mar 3, 6:44 am, "Nicolas M. Thiery"
wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 09:56:45AM -0800, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> > I would appreciate some input on the following ticket
> >http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10809
> > which constructs Cartesian produc
