Ladder of Algebraic Structures (opens in new tab)

Angiotensin-converting enzyme - does exactly what it says on the tin. You can lex it even further:

- Angio - heart (from ango, vessel)

- Tens - from hypertension, vis tendo, tendere, to stretch.

- (-in) - suffix associated with polypeptides:

- Convertere - turn around, from:

- Con - with

- Vert - turn

- En - inside

- Zyme - from zume/zymē - leavened, loosely, biological thing which causes leavening

It just makes so much sense! Lexemes are so cool. Like digging into linguistic source code.

Magmas are usually called "groupoids", but there's another generalization of group also called "groupoids". I'm actually not sure they really deserve a short name, rather than just "set with a binary operation", since there isn't much you can say about them in that generality that you can't generalize to "set with two binary operations", "set with a binary and a trinary operation", etc. The argument for a name is it gives you something to modify, since there are interesting special cases such as "medial groupoids". (An example of a medial groupoid is the real numbers with the "average of two numbers" operation.)

The resulting grid can be factored around set, bag, list and binary tree, with empty/non-empty variants.

Then there is interaction of the structures with binary operators on the data elements themselves, giving a nice analysis of map, filter, fold (reduce) in functional programming.

A.Bunkenburg, The Boom Hierarchy

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.49....

There is a rich literature if you chase the references back and forth, starting from Bird-Meertens Formalism (Squiggol), Hoogendijk, through Backhouse and Malcolm, to Meijer and McBride.

For example, I can see the use of commutativity (ab = ba) and anticommutativity (ab = -ba), but I'm not sure what I'd do with the negation of commutativity (ab ≠ ba).

This helped me grasp something that I had read from Alexander Stepanov[1] that I hadn't fully understood before (not being familiar with the algebraic terminology):

> I suddenly realized that the ability to add numbers in parallel depends on the fact that addition is associative...In other words, I realized that a parallel reduction algorithm is associated with a semigroup structure type. That is the fundamental point: algorithms are defined on algebraic structures.

I think the use case of building infrastructure for parallel/distributed computation as described above is a nice, concrete example of why using abstract algebra in our programs can be useful. It certainly isn't the only use case though. Other things include managing complex control flow, or passing an implicit context through a computational pipeline.

[0] https://www.infoq.com/presentations/abstract-algebra-analyti...

[1] http://stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html

The definition the parent poster used (or intended to use, but wrote the wrong way around, I believe) was that an algebra over a non-commutative ring is just an algebra over its commutative centre. (In which case, we’re still really just talking about algebras over commutative rings).

First, regarding the OP: Having spent many years studying algebra, I don't find the hierarchy of axioms to be very useful in thinking about these things. Sure, you can think of a field as a "commutative ring with inverses", but rings and fields present themselves so differently that this connection doesn't end up being all that useful. Fields are not rich enough on their own to support much interest. You'll find them mostly as building blocks rather than powerful tools in and of themselves. Ditto for modules and vector spaces. Sure, a module is "like a vector space but over a ring", but vector spaces are so boring by themselves that they show up mostly as scaffolding. The study of modules, on the other hand, is its own branch of mathematics. It's much more useful to think of them in terms of what you actually do with them.

Now, on to definitions. The following few paragraphs are all very small-minded and look far more complicated than they actually are. It all encodes pretty much what you'd expect.

If you want to define algebras over commutative rings, you need to start with left- and right-algebras. A left-algebra is an abelian group A equipped with a map \phi: R -> End(A). The abelian group structure defines the addition in the algebra, and the map defines the left-multiplication: if r \in R, and a \in A, then you define a times r as \phi(r)(a), where \phi(r) is an endomorphism on A.

A right-algebra is the same, only the map is from R to the opposite ring of End(A), where the opposite ring is the one you get by just reversing the multiplication. You need to do this because associativity demands that you compute ((a)r)s, where a \in A, r,s \in R, by first acting on a with r, then by s. But with the usual conventions of composition of functions, \phi(r) \circ \phi(s) means you first "do" s, then r. So you need to flip it. Working with left- and right-algebras is a pain in the butt because you have to carry around a ton of left-right nonsense.

A bialgebra (in the literature I read) is a an abelian group that is both a left- and right-algebra. A central bialgebra is one where the left and right multiplication are the same, which is not a given. Noncentral bialgebras are especially annoying, mostly because you have to figure out how to do pre-subscripts in LaTeX so you can write nonsense like "_R M_S".

Obviously, all of these things collapse if R is commutative. Noncommutative ring theory requires a special kind of patience. And don't even get me started on noncommutative geometry.