On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:30:29PM +, Simon King wrote:
> I'd be fine with having MagmaticAlgebras(), and keeping Algebras() as a
> synonyme of MagmaticAlgebras().Associative().Unital().
For the record: that's what's currently implemented in Sage.
Cheers,
Nicol
I think it would be a good idea to have a subcategory of associative
> algebras
> (and inheritance of classes from an associative class). Morphisms need to
> know to check associativity.
>
The current heirarchy is to start Magmatic algebras (no assumptions), then
you add the axioms "associ
On 7 May 2015 at 13:30, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Travis,
>
> On 2015-05-06, Travis Scrimshaw 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"
Hi Travis,
On 2015-05-06, Travis Scrimshaw 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 n
Hi All,
I think it would be a good idea to have a subcategory of associative
algebras
(and inheritance of classes from an associative class). Morphisms need to
know to check associativity.
On the other hand, I was convinced years ago (by an argument of Bergman
at Berkeley) that algebras shou
Hello,
Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> On #15635, we are trying to decide whether we want non-associative
> algebras to be included in the catalog of algebras.
For a general mathematical software system such as Sage, I think it is
overly restrictive to impose the rule that algebras are associative.
Th
