creating axioms for lattices #39554
creating axioms for lattices #39554
Conversation
|
Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 6f206c2; changes) is ready! 🎉 |
|
+1 on doing this. Just let me know once all the doctests have been added and tests pass and I will do a proper review. |
|
for some reason, probably the heuristic algo used to name the categories, the doctests are flaky EDIT: this was the case. Now they are just failing |
|
now doctests are flaky again.. |
|
I am not very satisfied : in the doctests, some implications between axioms are not used to remove the implied axiom in the name. |
fchapoton
force-pushed
the
axioms_for_lattices
branch
from
361c12e to
70bf0ca
Compare
|
@tscrim, this is mostly ready, I think, even if I am not satisfied by the long answers to |
|
but maybe I should rather put all that in |
fchapoton
force-pushed
the
axioms_for_lattices
branch
from
3a55986 to
94e12ee
Compare
|
now implemented as axioms of finite lattices. I am still not happy with the very long names of the categories. |
|
This starts to look reasonable. @tscrim would you please have a look when you can ? |
tscrim
left a comment
tscrim
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
According to the axiom doc, each new subclass should define precisely one new axioms, and it should be a subclass of the base category class. So, e.g., Stone should be defined in Distributive.
Is a trim and congruence uniform imply distributive? If not, then you need a dummy class for both of them to define the distributive (a limitation of the system) unless you make it a "normal" category. If so, then you need to implement, e.g., Trim_extra_super_categories() in CongruenceUniform like in DivisionRings (with the hierarchy going Trim -> Distributive).
This should hopefully help take care of the naming issues.
|
still battling to understand.. I have nested the classes: So I want now Distributive to be a subclass of both CongruenceUniform and Trim. I do not yet see how another dummy class can help to achieve that. |
You choose one and the add an |
tscrim
left a comment
tscrim
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, two other things that I would like to see done in this PR.
tscrim
left a comment
tscrim
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One last little thing. If you'd rather ignore it, that's fine too.
Co-authored-by: Travis Scrimshaw <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Travis Scrimshaw <[email protected]>
|
this should be good to go now, maybe ? |
|
@tscrim : I hope that FPSAC went well. Would you please approve this one when you can ? |
|
Yes, let's get this in. Thank you for reminding me about it. |
sagemathgh-39554: creating axioms for lattices as this would be a natural place to put some specific methods from sagemath#37601 ### 📝 Checklist - [x] The title is concise and informative. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [x] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview. URL: sagemath#39554 Reported by: Frédéric Chapoton Reviewer(s): Frédéric Chapoton, Travis Scrimshaw
sagemathgh-40705: use the finer new categories for some lattice posets in library namely declare some known properties as categories, as allowed by sagemath#39554 ### 📝 Checklist - [x] The title is concise and informative. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. URL: sagemath#40705 Reported by: Frédéric Chapoton Reviewer(s): Frédéric Chapoton, Martin Rubey
sagemathgh-40945: introduce the category of graded lattices as this will be a useful thing to have sequel of sagemath#39554 and sagemath#40705 ### 📝 Checklist - [x] The title is concise and informative. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. URL: sagemath#40945 Reported by: Frédéric Chapoton Reviewer(s): Frédéric Chapoton, Travis Scrimshaw
sagemathgh-40945: introduce the category of graded lattices as this will be a useful thing to have sequel of sagemath#39554 and sagemath#40705 ### 📝 Checklist - [x] The title is concise and informative. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. URL: sagemath#40945 Reported by: Frédéric Chapoton Reviewer(s): Frédéric Chapoton, Travis Scrimshaw
3 participants
as this would be a natural place to put some specific methods from #37601
📝 Checklist