A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
argumatronic.com
A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
1–10 of 48 posts
Re: A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
#2Oh wow, this looks great. I had started working on my own FP glossary, but this has a ton of information and is clear enough that I'm sure many will find it very very helpful.
Re: A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
#3> Rng
I really think names without a fairly obvious way of saying them out-loud should just be avoided/deprecated. I can't pronounce this as "ring" (because then you'd think I was referring to a ring, not a rng). Do I just spell it out? R-N-G? I'd rather just call it a non-unital ring. That involves more letters but is much more descriptive (to a mathematician, anyway).
Re: A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
#4> Rng I really think names without a fairly obvious way of saying them out-loud should just be avoided/deprecated. I can't pronounce this as "ring" (because then you'd think I was referring to a ring, not a rng). Do I just spell it out? R-N-G? I'd rather just call it a non-unital ring. That involves more letters but is much more descriptive (to a mathematician, anyway).
I pronounce it /r@N/ -- i.e. like 'ring' but with the 'a' in comma, or the o in button. Although if it was a Rng formed by a pseudo-random sequence, then R-N-G would be apt ;).
Re: A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
#5> Rng I really think names without a fairly obvious way of saying them out-loud should just be avoided/deprecated. I can't pronounce this as "ring" (because then you'd think I was referring to a ring, not a rng). Do I just spell it out? R-N-G? I'd rather just call it a non-unital ring. That involves more letters but is much more descriptive (to a mathematician, anyway).
To be fair, the author has already made this point.
Re: A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
#6> Rng I really think names without a fairly obvious way of saying them out-loud should just be avoided/deprecated. I can't pronounce this as "ring" (because then you'd think I was referring to a ring, not a rng). Do I just spell it out? R-N-G? I'd rather just call it a non-unital ring. That involves more letters but is much more descriptive (to a mathematician, anyway).
You pronounce it as "rung".
Re: A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
#7> Rng I really think names without a fairly obvious way of saying them out-loud should just be avoided/deprecated. I can't pronounce this as "ring" (because then you'd think I was referring to a ring, not a rng). Do I just spell it out? R-N-G? I'd rather just call it a non-unital ring. That involves more letters but is much more descriptive (to a mathematician, anyway).
As mentioned, it should be pronounced "rung," but in any case, removing the i and suddenly making it a word and pronouncing it in a very unexpected way is really pretty stupid. I think, if one's really insisting on using "ring" but without the i, at least call it "rung" not "rng" so that its pronounciation is clear.
If it's so important to have a "rng" instead of a "ring" then using its name in some example of its usage should probably be better.
Re: A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
#8> Rng I really think names without a fairly obvious way of saying them out-loud should just be avoided/deprecated. I can't pronounce this as "ring" (because then you'd think I was referring to a ring, not a rng). Do I just spell it out? R-N-G? I'd rather just call it a non-unital ring. That involves more letters but is much more descriptive (to a mathematician, anyway).
As mentioned, it should be pronounced "rung," but in any case, removing the i and suddenly making it a word and pronouncing it in a very unexpected way is really pretty stupid. I think, if one's really insisting on using "ring" but without the i, at least call it "rung" not "rng" so that its pronounciation is clear. If it's so important to have a "rng" instead of a "ring" then using its name in some example of its us…
Well, words, terms, notations and conventions come super cheap in math. You can call/denote "rng" anything you want. You just have to let your readers/interlocutors know about your conventions at the outset which is a standard practice in math anyway. For another thing, "r(u)ng" to me it's no different from writing "colonel" and reading it "kernel" (historical accident aside) :) There's also "lieutenant" which is pronounced " leftenant" in UK.
Re: A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
#9> Rng I really think names without a fairly obvious way of saying them out-loud should just be avoided/deprecated. I can't pronounce this as "ring" (because then you'd think I was referring to a ring, not a rng). Do I just spell it out? R-N-G? I'd rather just call it a non-unital ring. That involves more letters but is much more descriptive (to a mathematician, anyway).
it's a ring without (i)dentity. makes perfect sense to me. Besides this is a mathematical object not a programming thing - math has its own culture and conventions and pronunciation isn't a cultural value.
Re: A Brief Guide to a Few Algebraic Structures
#10> Rng I really think names without a fairly obvious way of saying them out-loud should just be avoided/deprecated. I can't pronounce this as "ring" (because then you'd think I was referring to a ring, not a rng). Do I just spell it out? R-N-G? I'd rather just call it a non-unital ring. That involves more letters but is much more descriptive (to a mathematician, anyway).
Yeh, she calls it out right in the definition:
"If we may speak frankly, the rig and rng nomenclatures are abominations. Nevertheless, you may see them sometimes, but we will speak of them no more."
:)