[sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

2016-09-02 Thread Simon King
Hi! On 2016-09-01, Kwankyu Lee wrote: >> Side-question: Would it be SageMath-technically possible that one axiom >> implies another? I think so. For example, if you combine the axioms of a division ring with the "finite" axiom, it implies the "commutative"-axiom: sage:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

2016-09-01 Thread Kwankyu Lee
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 4:53:00 PM UTC+2, Daniel Krenn wrote: > > On 2016-09-01 01:47, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > I am playing with an experimental implementation of "enumerated" axiom. > > From what I guess is, that this axiom implies an implementation of > __getitem__, correct? > If

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

2016-09-01 Thread Daniel Krenn
On 2016-09-01 01:47, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > I am playing with an experimental implementation of "enumerated" axiom. >From what I guess is, that this axiom implies an implementation of __getitem__, correct? Does it also imply something on the index set (e.g. natural numbers) of this object? Or does

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

2016-08-31 Thread Kwankyu Lee
One more nice example. sage -t src/sage/combinat/integer_vector_weighted.py ** File "src/sage/combinat/integer_vector_weighted.py", line 125, in sage.combinat.integer_vector_weighted.WeightedIntegerVectors_all.__init__ Failed

[sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

2016-08-28 Thread Simon King
Hi Nicolas, On 2016-08-28, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: >>Alternatively: >>Category of enumerable X > > This one would be harder to implement (no different from the more > natural "Category of enumerated X"), as we would need to do something > specific for joins

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

2016-08-28 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:46:40AM -0700, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > A first improvement could be to use: > Category of X an enumerated sets. Oops, I just noticed a typo which may have been confusing. I really meant: Category of X and enumerated sets. It's easy to implement,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

2016-08-26 Thread Kwankyu Lee
> > Output of join categories definitely could use some love. :-) > A first improvement could be to use: > > Category of X an enumerated sets. > Alternatively: Category of enumerable X > should be trivial to implement. Good news. But I have to study more of the internals of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

2016-08-26 Thread Nicolas M. Thiery
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:38:35PM -0700, Kwankyu Lee wrote: >Right. Perhaps I was just thinking of "cosmetics". Lots of parents in >Sage should be finite enumerated sets. If their category is a join of >some category X and the category of finite enumerated sets, then it is >

[sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

2016-08-23 Thread Kwankyu Lee
Right. Perhaps I was just thinking of "cosmetics". Lots of parents in Sage should be finite enumerated sets. If their category is a join of some category X and the category of finite enumerated sets, then it is printed as Join of some category X and the category of finite enumerated sets. I

[sage-devel] Re: Declaring a parent in a category as a finite enumerated set

2016-08-23 Thread Simon King
Hi Kwankyu, On 2016-08-23, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > For (1): Joining categories works. However, this seems not a standard nor > an elegant way... Why not? It is absolutely standard in mathematics to consider objects A that belong to the category of rings and belong at the same