Wolfgang Jeltsch schrieb: > Okay. Well, a monoid with many objects isn’t a monoid anymore since a monoid > has only one object. It’s the same as with: “A ring is a field whose > multiplication has no inverse.” One usually knows what is meant with this but > it’s actually wrong. Wrong for two reasons: First, because the multiplication > of a field has an inverse. Second, because the multiplication of a ring is > not forced to have no inverse but may have one.
“A ring is like a field, but without a multiplicative inverse” is, in my eyes, an acceptable formulation. We just have to agree that “without” here refers to the definition, rather than to the definitum. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
