On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:59:10PM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> How does sage know to supply them with a tensor method?
See ModulesWithBasis.ParentMethods.tensor and
ModulesWithBasis.ElementMethods.tensor. Those could be lifted to
Modules if we had more general implementations.
Cheers,
How does sage know to supply them with a tensor method?
--Mark
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:46:34AM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> > One last question: how do morphisms of modules know they can be tensored?
>
> Like parents or elements: because they (should) have a "tensor"
> method?
>
> (I may
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:46:34AM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> One last question: how do morphisms of modules know they can be tensored?
Like parents or elements: because they (should) have a "tensor"
method?
(I may have misunderstood your question ...)
Cheers,
You're right.
One last question: how do morphisms of modules know they can be tensored?
--Mark
> How each functorial construction deduces from C, the properties of the
> composite object is an independent logic, isn't it?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:28:15AM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> To do this entirely correctly each functorial construction needs to know what
> properties it
> respects; otherwise the new composite object may possess properties that
> don't make sense,
> even when all its pieces have the proper
Nicolas,
> - Where to put such a method (and what its name should be). As a
> starter, let's take sage.categories.category.meet_category_of.
>
> - How to implement it; I guess we can start by doing the usual meet,
> and then hardcoding the special rule for modules; maybe later we
> will hav
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 07:27:51AM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> I'm implementing smash products of AlgebrasWithBasis,
> which are tensor products of algebras with not-necessarily-componentwise
> product. When the tensor factors are themselves tensor products,
> I don't want to use the default te
Nicolas,
I'm implementing smash products of AlgebrasWithBasis,
which are tensor products of algebras with not-necessarily-componentwise
product. When the tensor factors are themselves tensor products,
I don't want to use the default tensor product construction, which flattens
tensors (good for li
Hi Mark!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 06:44:04PM -0400, Mark Shimozono wrote:
> I require a method which, given a sage category of a module,
> returns the ring which acts upon it.
>
> There is a method :meth:`ModulesWithBasis.base_ring`
> which is supposed to give the base ring of a module (rat
Travis,
I require a method which, given a sage category of a module,
returns the ring which acts upon it.
There is a method :meth:`ModulesWithBasis.base_ring`
which is supposed to give the base ring of a module (rather than
that of a category of modules) but it is broken.
The base ring is stored
Hey Mark,
The reason this was done was because the category doesn't depend on the
particular base ring, but on its category. The issue is that the people who
work on finite fields create a lot of fields over large ranges of primes,
and so would have to create a new category every time with th
11 matches
Mail list logo
