Live data from Hacker News

Abstract algebra for developers and people who hate math

poincare101.blogspot.com

1–10 of 56 posts

Re: Abstract algebra for developers and people who hate math

#4
Nice content! Thanks for putting it in more easy words.

If I could give you a suggestion, a better way of showing it could be better. Like some slides, or colors. Something that made more friendly to read. Although the content is good, scanning it do not made me want to read right way.

Anyway, thanks!

Re: Abstract algebra for developers and people who hate math

#5
Nice read, and nice example of specialization: Simply putting "for developers" in the title surely helped this article get so high on HN, though there's no application of computer science or programming to make the article more tailored for developers. I don't want to sound snarky by any means, as I did genuinely enjoy the article, but it's neat to see marketing 101 in action: Simply picking and acknowledging an audience(developers) made the reception of the article so much stronger.

Edit: OP stated he will edit the article to include more CS application.

Re: Abstract algebra for developers and people who hate math

#8

Nice content! Thanks for putting it in more easy words. If I could give you a suggestion, a better way of showing it could be better. Like some slides, or colors. Something that made more friendly to read. Although the content is good, scanning it do not made me want to read right way. Anyway, thanks!

I'll do that for the next one, glad you enjoyed it!

Re: Abstract algebra for developers and people who hate math

#9
People who hate math aren't going to be inspired by a collection of axioms and equations. Nor are they likely to be wowed by the examples of matrices and vectors. Some examples from geometry, or permutations, might be more likely to teach the concepts.

People who know something about math are going to spot several errors in the presentation. For example, the reals with multiplication don't form a group, since 0 has no multiplicative inverse.

Not an error, but a subtlety: the collection of axioms here says that the group has a right identity and right inverses. It's later assumed that the identity is also a left identity (in the proof of uniqueness). This is true, as it happens, but it's not entirely obvious. The usual presentation of groups has two-sided identities and inverses up-front.

Actually, the alternative axiom set of a right identity, but left inverses, has models that are not groups. An example is a left zero semigroup, where ab = a for all a and b. We have right identity (ae = a; no problem) and left inverses (for all a, there exists b such that ba = e; yes, just take b = e). This isn't a group! (OK, unless it has only one element.)

Maybe this illustrates an interesting point for developers: the axiomatic approach is like having a common interface for some class of objects, and it's helpful to be able to reason about them without knowing the details of how they're implemented. But reasoning about the expressive power of different interfaces or specifications can be horribly difficult. The Robbins conjecture (about the equivalence of two axiom sets for Boolean algebra) was open from 1933 to 1996 - and proved in an automated theorem prover, no less.

Re: Abstract algebra for developers and people who hate math

#10
post #9

People who hate math aren't going to be inspired by a collection of axioms and equations. Nor are they likely to be wowed by the examples of matrices and vectors. Some examples from geometry, or permutations, might be more likely to teach the concepts. People who know something about math are going to spot several errors in the presentation. For example, the reals with multiplication don't form a group, since 0 has n…

Upvoted. Very true, and thanks for the mistakes and stuff. I'll fix the ones I can, and I'm adding some more stuff that actually relates to CS.
Post reply on HN