| |
| ▲ | agrounds 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Absolutely agree. All formal statements (like mathematical ones) are going to have some level of assumed background. And as the assumed background expands, the language naturally becomes more information dense. As for your specific questions, I believe Wikipedia does a great job of answering two of them for a layperson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space For the others, I’ll say that a formal variable is just a symbol (literally, like the letter t). With such a symbol, we can construct polynomials like 2t^2 - t + 3. Also, there’s no need to only use integers as the allowed coefficients; you can use any ring you like instead. An “algebra over the ring R” is what I was attempting to define in my comment above. The algebra is “over” R if we can multiply an element of the algebra by an element of R. The useful analogy here is scalar multiplication in a vector space: you can multiply a vector by 2 to double it or -1/2 to reflect and shorten it. More generally, it makes perfect sense to consider some more general version of vectors which can be scalar multiplied by elements of any ring R. | | |
| ▲ | hexasquid 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ah, t is a formal variable, a symbol, like the letter t. Not like a drink with jam and bread. | |
| ▲ | ChrisClark 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My questions were mostly to agree it's hard to understand, but they were true ignorance. I'm glad you answered them. It finally makes sense to me, and now I realize I didn't even understand "over" in that context. That Ring wiki page though, um, nope... :D | | |
| ▲ | agrounds 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That Ring wiki page though, um, nope... :D Fair enough! At a super high level, a ring is just a collection that has a similar structure to what you’re used to “numbers” having. That is, you can add, subtract, and multiply them. Not divide! If we restrict ourselves to just whole numbers then 2/3 is not allowed. We also require that something like 0 and 1 have to be there. “Like zero” means 0 + x = x for every x in your collection, and “like one” means 1x = x for every x. And lastly, we require that the distributive property holds. Examples include the set of whole numbers (Z), the rationals aka fractions (Q), the reals (R), complex numbers (C). These are all infinite rings, but there are also finite rings such as the set of whole numbers modulo a fixed number n, denoted Z/nZ. For instance, Z/2Z has only two elements, namely 0 and 1, with rules like 1 + 1 = 0. There are also polynomial rings, like Z[t], whose elements are all polynomials with integer coefficients (e.g. 3t^3 - t - 2). You can add, subtract, and multiply such polynomials and the result is more polynomials, so this collection is indeed a ring. |
|
| |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > But... what is a ring? What is a formal variable? What is a vector space? What does "algebra over the ring" mean? All these terms were taught to computer science (and of course math, physics, ...) students as part of getting their degree in computer science, because these concepts are important for many algorithms. | | |
| ▲ | versteegen 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Having studied CS and maths to post-grad, I think you exaggerate. Although a CS course might use these tools, they didn't in my experience go into explaining or defining them. The only use of linear algebra I can remember was in analysis of recurrence relations for algorithms, and for some graph theory. And I had one CS course on multivariate generating functions (formal variables) but most CS students would have been terrified of that. Abstract algebra is also used in combinatorial or search algorithms, but they would never use terminology like "ring". | |
| ▲ | agrounds 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I studied a lot of abstract algebra in college and grad school and I’m surprised that rings and algebras would come up in a CS degree. What algorithms topics used those concepts? Something about polynomials? | | |
| ▲ | versteegen 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Algebra is useful because graphs are algebraic objects, and a lot of CS is about graphs, in particular search/planning. But no, I never saw rings mentioned except for generating functions, which are used for analysing recurrence relations. For example in search algorithms where you want to search a space without visiting state nodes twice. Each state in the search space is produced by the sequence (a product of) of operators from the start state: elements of a monoid (or group if actions are invertible) which define the primitive steps. Trivial example being generating all permutations of a list. More interesting, enumerate all graphs with some property with pathwidth at most k, by adding one edge or vertex at a time. So now you want to know the structure of this group so you know which sequences of elements simplify and don't need to be tried, and you want to canonicalise each state to throw out duplicates. And you can think in terms of orbits: if there are some symmetries then you might want to factor by the symmetry group and only visit one node in each orbit, grouping states into orbits with a single representative state.
See eg. Pochter, Zohar and Rosenschein, Exploiting Problem Symmetries in State-Based Planners. | | |
| ▲ | agrounds 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the reply, this is very illuminating. I never got to this depth in algorithms. I’m but a humble programmer with a math background, but no CS degree. |
| |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Rings: * Determinant calculation: - The Samuelson–Berkowitz algorithm is best understood in terms of general rings - The Faddeev–LeVerrier algorithm and determinant calculation using Gaussian elimination work on rings with specific properties (for the Faddeev–LeVerrier algorithm the restriction is on the characteristic of the ring, for Gaussian elimination the ring must be an integral domain (ideally a field)). * Ring-learning with errors (for post-quantum cryptography and homomorphic cryptography). Here, a specific ring is the central object. * Number-Theoretic Transform (NTT): Basically a generalization of the Fourier Transform to the ring Z_n. Important for arbitrary-precision integer arithmetic * Chinese Remainder Theorem. Often only formulated for the ring Z, but it can be generalized to larger classes of rings. Used for example in Shamir’s scheme for secret sharing (cryptography) * The theory of BCH and Reed-Solomon codes uses a specific ring * The AKS Primality Test (a really deep result in computational number theory) uses the ring Z_n[X]/(x^r-1). --- Algebras: Very often, a ring is constructed from another ring. Examples: * the polynomial ring R[X_1, ..., X_n] * The ring of (square) matrices over a ring R So, using algebras in algorithms often means: "we want to make use use of this additional structure that our (more sophisticated) ring has)". (Associative) R-algebras formalize this concept of "ring with additional structure". To just give one algorithm for polynomials: * Buchberger algorithm for computing a Gröbner basis Other examples: * Clifford algebras for a lot of geometric problems (special case: quaternions (a 4-dimensional \mathbb{R}-algebra) for rotations in \mathbb{R}^3). * If you are willing to also consider semi-rings (in this case: tropical semi-rings): the Floyd-Warshall algorithm for finding shortest paths and the Viterbi algorithm for finding the most likely sequence of states in a Hidden-Markov Model (HMM) can very elegantly formulated using the matrix semiring over the tropical semiring. | | |
| ▲ | reverius42 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > The tropical semiring has various applications (see tropical analysis), and forms the basis of tropical geometry. The name tropical is a reference to the Hungarian-born computer scientist Imre Simon, so named because he lived and worked in Brazil.[1] I'm convinced half the reason people find CS terminology more accessible and Math terminology less so, is that CS terminology tends to be named after stuff, and Math terminology tends to be named after people, and ... sometimes whether the place they lived is a tropical place. |
| |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | (At least some) error-correcting codes are based on polynomials over finite fields. I couldn't say much more, but it's at least intuitively plausible since e.g. an nth degree polynomial is defined by any n+1 points, so if you know say n+1+p ("p" for "parity") points, you can lose up to p and still recover the polynomial. |
|
|
|
