3 ms·
That's because the inheritance in abstract algebra is so bloody obvious. At least when I studied math, it was the first subject in which the template was: Let'
by CurtMonash 12y ago
That's because the inheritance in abstract algebra is so bloody obvious. At least when I studied math, it was the first subject in which the template was:
Let's define something, and consider what we can figure out about it.
Now let's add another property, and see what we can figure out.
Now let's add yet another property, and see what happens.
Etc.
One winds up familiar with the whole progression group --> abelian group (although not much time is spent on that one) --> ring --> integral domain --> unique factorization domain --> principal ideal domain --> Euclidean domain --> field.
- tel 12y agoThis sort of subtyping tree available in abstract algebra isn't the same as an inheritance tree. Inheritance merely layers constructors. What you really want to consider is interface subtyping and layering. Actually, more than just interfaces you want to also carry along laws. For instance, a group is a monoid with an inverse operation appended (interface concatenation) cut down by the fact that the inverse operation must be "nice" (law concatenation). If you only append the interfaces you end up with free structures.