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
10 matches
Mail list logo
