Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> 
> On 08/17/2015 02:14 AM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> 
> > 1) Just operation '+' (named AdditiveOperation or possible
> >    AdditiveMagma)
> 
> The aldor library calls it "AdditiveType", but it already has 0 and -.
> https://github.com/pippijn/aldor/blob/master/aldor/lib/aldor/src/arith/sal_arith.as#L30
> 
> I'm rather in favour of excluding 0 and - from the very basic category.
> 
> > 2) '+' and 0 (neutral element) I am tempted to call it
> >    AdditiveOperation0
> 
> I'd rather use AdditiveOperationsZero or AdditiveMagmaZero. I somewhat
> don't like the number symbol in the category name. But that's not a very
> strong opinion.

OK, in analogy with exising names we get AdditiveMagmaWithUnit

> > 3) Associativity: AdditiveSemigroup
> > 4) Associativity and 0: AdditiveMonoid
> 
> If you call it "Monoid" then, of course, that would include the axiom
> for the unit element 0 and not just the existence of a distinct element
> 0 with no further properties.

Sure.

> I'm not really sure, but maybe we could think of introducing a category
> that represents the axioms. AdditiveSemigroup is OK for associativity,
> but, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma_%28algebra%29
> there is also "unital magma", i.e. without associativity.

AFAICS it is exactly AdditiveMagmaWithUnit (2 above).

> > 5) Associativity and Inverse: AdditiveGroup
> > 6) Associativity and cancellation property (left/right)
> > 
> > 3, 4, 5 and commutativity give existing categories: AbelianSemigroup,
> > AbelianMonoid, AbelianGroup
> 
> Although "Abelian" seems to be used consistently, i.e. always only wrt.
> the + operation, why not continue using "Additive" and "Multiplicative"
> in the name to avoid confusion? I.e. we would have AbelianAdditiveGroup,
> AbelianMultiplicativeGroup, etc.
> 
> Currently, we have Group reserved for *. The respective categories for +
> always include commutativity. Not perfect, I would say. So I would want
> AdditiveGroup and MultiplicativeGroup.

Names can get quite long, like CancellationAbelianMonoid.  I think
when we have opportunity to shorten names without confusion we
should use it.

> > Then similar categories for '*', starting from say
> > MultiplicativeOperation).
> 
> I find it somewhat unfortunate, but with the current language, we can
> only express these algebraic concepts in terms of the symbol + or *,
> i.e. we will basically have two copies of the same algebraic hierarchy
> (additive and multiplicative) as categories in FriCAS. But this
> duplication is OK for now.
> 
> > Then we get categories combining the two operations:
> > - just operation
> 
> > - 0 which is identity for '+' and satisfies 0*x = x*0 = 0
> >   (supposedly this is called Shell)
> 
> I think these are two properties (1) identity, (2) absorbing element,
> and thus would introduce two categories UnitalAdditiveMagma and
> AbsorbingZero (or ZeroElement or AbsorbingElement or ...).
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorbing_element
> The above url even speaks about left and right zero.

Yes, the above is just a Join of two categories.  I just mentioned
it because supposedly it got a name...

> > - near-semiring: two associative operations with right
> >   distributive law
> > - near-ring: group with respect to addition
> > 
> > I do not expect to be able to perform a lot of computations with
> > domains of such general categories.  However, some exaples are
> > easy to create and I think it would be nice to have them
> > incorporated into our category hierarchy.
> 
> I fully agree with Waldek on starting the categories just with the
> operations (without any axioms) and then step by step add the axioms in
> terms of a named category that clearly documents what property of the
> operation(s) is required.
> 
> Ralf
> 


-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch
[email protected] 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to