You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently MathClasses defines Ring to be a commutative ring. I propose to rename it to CommutativeRing, and introduce a Ring for non-commutative rings. Are there any objections? If no, I'll prepare a pull request.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The reason we did so was because we do not have a substantial development of non-commutative rings. I'd like to wait with the change until there is a need for it.
Thanks for the suggestion, though.
I was going to improve the linear algebra part of math-classes. In particular, it would be nice to just say "linear maps form a ring". Actually, I think that just renaming Ring to CommutativeRing without introducing non-commutative rings is a good thing, because it improves readability for mathematicians not familiar with this library.
BTW, what is the relation between Ring.v (with Ring_theory.v), Ncring.v and Cring.v in stdlib? They define rings in two different ways, and I failed to find conversion between these two versions.
Currently MathClasses defines
Ring
to be a commutative ring. I propose to rename it toCommutativeRing
, and introduce aRing
for non-commutative rings. Are there any objections? If no, I'll prepare a pull request.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: