Talk:Semiring

The Mathworld URL doesn't work for me (right now).

Is importing this from Mathworld (a) OK and (b) worth it?

Charles Matthews 09:20, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Merge with Rig (algebra)

Every reference on semirings that I can find (besides the always dubious MathWorld) defines them to include 0 and 1. Which means this is the same concept as that defined at rig (algebra). Moreover, I can find numerous references on semirings but almost none on rigs. Is this a term that is really used? In any case it seems that "semiring" is more common and "rig" should be redirected here and not the other way around. Comments, objections? -- Fropuff 23:54, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Isn't rig used by John Baez? And isn't that the only obvious reason it made it into WP?

Charles Matthews 02:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ahh... there's a theory. I think you may be right. Baez appears to use rig frequently. See "This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics" 121, 185, 191. His own comment on the matter: [1]. In any case I think I will merge the articles. -- Fropuff 03:47, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Problem with skew lattice example

As an example of a semiring, a skew lattice on a ring is stated. But the operation a+b+ba-aba-bab is not associative in general, thus a skew lattice may not be a semiring. I am not an expert so I did not delete this - if you are an expert and agree, please delete it. --90.180.188.114 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with semiring definition

This property appears in the semiring definition:

 4. Multiplication by 0 annihilates R: 0·a = a·0 = 0

But according to the ring definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) that property is not required. And the only difference between a ring and a semiring is the lack of inverse. This property does not appear in Mathworld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Semiring.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melopsitaco (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 November 2012‎ (UTC)

Rings satisfy this property automatically, it follows from distributivity and the existence of additive inverses, so that’s why it is not stated there explicitly. Mathworld is well known for numerous errors, and the definition we have is properly sourced.—Emil J. 13:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

—

But doesn't this annihilation axiom 4 also follow here, for semirings, from distributivity and additive identity?:

distributivity:
   a(b+c) = ab + ac
assume c=0:
=> a(b+0) = ab + a0
additive identity:
    (b+0) = 0
=> a(b)   = ab + a0

If a0 != 0 (axiom 4), distributivity is unsatisfied.

NB: I'm really asking. I'm not an expert -- 20:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. The additive identity law says that x plus zero is x for all x, but you've got b plus zero being equal to zero (it should be equal to b). Hdgarrood (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think $b+0=0$ is just a typo; correcting it to $b+0=b$ still leads to the conclusion $ab=ab+a0$. The real problem is that we cannot conclude from this that $a0=0$ holds: for that we would need that $\forall x,y:x+y=x\implies y=0$, i.e., a form of cancellation property. Proving that normally is done by subtracting $x$ from both sides, which we can't do here. Indeed, I believe a counterexample can be obtained by modifying the extended natural numbers slightly: change the rule $0\cdot \infty =0$ to $0\cdot \infty =\infty$. The result seems to satisfy all axioms of a semiring as given here, except for the final one (0 does not annihilate the whole ring) BlackFingolfin (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Should bibliography be changed to references?

Should bibliography section be changed to a reference section? Or should the footnotes be made into the reference section while the general sources be left as bibliography?

In general, of the pages I have seen on wikipedia, there does not seem to be any standard way to categorize references. I've seen "footnotes", "references", "bibliography", "notes", etc. as headers and with different content under them. Pages also have different combinations of there headers; some having "notes" and "references" with "notes" being references that are footnotes, some use "notes" for non-reference notes only, etc.

Is there some standard way of doing this that is documented? Shouldn't there be?

This is my first post in any talk section coming after my first edit of an article (this one) so I apologize for my ignorance. I added the only non-reference footnote to this page and that is what sparked this question. For now I will add a "notes" section just so there isn't a random non-bibliographic note in the "bibliography" section... Dosithee (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is covered by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, especially at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Notes_and_References. "Bibliography" is an alternative for "References". Deltahedron (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

General Question on Math Standarization

Are there really no standard definitions of mathematical terms? Everything from the definition of range to semiring seems to have different definitions depending on the source. And there is also the issue of multiple names for the same thing like "one-one (or 1-1) or one-to-one for injective, and one-one mapping or one-to-one mapping for injection." This seems like a large issue in terms of its effects on clarity and thus learning and expresion. It seems there must have been some conference or something on this at some point but I cant find any.

Dosithee (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean standard in the world at large, or on Wikpedia? In either case the answer is no, but a general question like this would be better addressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Deltahedron (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tropical semiring

There are several defs of that in various sources but the source cited [only] gives a 3rd one [not given in this wiki article], with the whole extended real line: [2]! JMP EAX (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The text and the table on that page are incconsistent: the definition in the article is that of the text. It would be good to find a reliable source that sorted out the various definitions that exist in the literature. Deltahedron (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Meanwhile, I have expanded the text with reference for the other definition. Deltahedron (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Star semiring

"To make * actually act like the usual Kleene star, a more elaborate notion of complete star semiring is needed." is a little clumsy, as it implies the object is to make the asterate as close as possible to the Kleene star. Deltahedron (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reordered the material to present the more complicated algebraic structure towards the end, and moved some text to Monoid#Complete monoids which seems a more natural target for the redirect Complete monoid which was otherwise circular. Deltahedron (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should have considered that the "more complicated" isn't really so. There's a reason these notions are introduced in a certain order in WP:RS. I have reverted your "improvement" as it completely messed up the logic of the presentation, giving overpowered examples for trivial notions like for simply adding a unary operation. JMP EAX (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

An algebraic structure with additonal operations may reasonably be considered "more complicated". Please explain the reason for the order of the presentation in the source as you see it, and what the logic of the presentation is that you feel has been messed up. Deltahedron (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In this edit (for which the edit summary is unhelpful):

Two sources are removed from the example "tropical seminring". Why?

Sourced material on continuous semirings and their relation to complete semirings is removed. Why? Removing sourced material requires an explanation beyond the unhelpful edit summary given.

The phrase "a completely unsurprising example" is added. Which source is that in? Or is it a personal opinion?

Two sourced examples of star semirings that are not complete star semirings are removed. Why? Having examples of the wider class that are not in the more restrictive class aids the reader's understanding.

The third part of WP:BRD is called for here. Deltahedron (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained above why I've reverted you. I can be convinced to move complete semiring before/out of the * section, but you should (1) add examples of that are not relating to * and (2) list some of their properties not related to *. Otherwise it's a completely "huh?" section by itself. In general, your writing style in this article and in your other contributions/articles on this topic (e.g. rational series) is extremely bad for a general purpose encyclopedia. You just dump definitions is a dry manner with no attempt to explain why they are introduced. Note that most sources don't do that. My PhD advisor had a somewhat racist/nationalist joke about Russian mathematicians in relation to this issue in general, but I can't quite repeat it here. I do wonder however if you ever had to teach classes yourself anywhere and what if you did what kind of evaluations you've got. Because it's pretty clear to me that you write a very bad/unapproachable way, especially for a venue like Wikipedia. You also seem to have some trouble grokking not necessarily this topic but the ones connected to it like rational language. After you admitted at WP:COMPSCI that you didn't do a good job with this topic area, you've suddenly found a huge interest in improving my work. Allow me to very skeptical of your "improvements". You can go back and the trivial examples you wrote if you insist, but I don't think they add anything to the article except length. As for the continuous semirings, why are you introducing them? Again you didn't say and gave zero examples thereof. There are a bazillion other defs that one can give for classes of semirings that are more interesting, like residuated semirings etc. JMP EAX (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not on the contributor". Speculations about other editors' teaching careers or nationality do not help improve the article. Comments on other editors' perceived levels of expertise in a different area do not help improve the article. In this context it may be helpful for you to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy on derogatory comments. Comments on other editors' style improve the article only insofaras they are relevant to the material actually added to the article. If you find that material is dry, then improve it, or suggest improvements. Deleting material you do not like the style of is much less helpful than disucssing and improving it.

This is how I would propose to lay out material on a subclass of semirings, in this case complete star semirings. Firstly, define complete semirings and star semirings, each with a set of examples Finally define complete star semirings, again with a set of examples. In this case continuous semirings are closely related to complete semirings, so it makes sense to include them: an additional motivation here is that this emphasises the relationship between partial orders defined on the semirings and the star structure: for example, Conway uses the order approach to prove Kleene's theorem in his 1971 book. Of course there are choices here. For example, should the examples of complete star semirings be introduced early on, or only after the last definition? There's no right answer to that. I would like to see examples of a concept which are not examples of the richer structure, folloewd by examples of the richer structure. Examples of continuous semirings would have been helpful, but as some editors have said, there is no deadline. In my view, a definition without an example is hugely preferable to no definition at all: the reader in search of information will still be able to see what sort of thing it is and find references to further resources on the subject. That, it seems to me, is what an encyclopaedia is for.

The current state of the material seems to me to be intended to do one thing only, which is to introduce complete star semirings in a way which makes the star operation as close as possible to the traditional Kleene star. This is not the only approach. A reason for the axiomatisation and separation out of the various properties is the entirely reasonable mathematical activity of finding out which of the properties of the Kleene star derive from what assumptions. On the way, various structures of interest emerge, and various theorems are proved about the relationships between them. That may not suit the point of view that star semirings are "really" or "completely unsurprisingly" the original formal languages: but that's only a point of view; it isn't correct, or at least, isn't the whole truth; and it isn't helpful to the reader of the encyclopaedia. Deltahedron (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Continous semirings. I propose to reinstate this material. It is sourced, it introduces a relevant concept, and links it to a concept already discussed in the article. I suggest that only very strong reasons would justify its removal. Deltahedron (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply: The little satisfaction I get from improving an article like this is simply not worth the hassle [for me] of dealing with someone like you and this kind of "dialogue". So you can lord over this and formal power series and rational series and weighted automata and weighted rational expression all you want from now on. I'm done editing this topic area, thanks to you, Deltahedron. You WP:WIN. And your obstinacy here is just like the one I saw at Talk: Rigi (software), where you insisted on an irrelvant, low-quality source that adds nothing to that article. But at least there the impact of your obstinancy on the content of that article was minimal. I see you are also very fond of long logorheas and rules lawyering on the dramaz boards just like here. I'd frankly have to be pretty insane [by my standards of sanity] to continue arguing on the interwebz with someone who writes stuff like this. Next time you complain (on Jimbo's talk or elesewhere) how some editors' behavior drives away other editors away, take a look in the mirror first. JMP EAX (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you do not wish to continue editing this article: your perspective would have been a welcome complement, and of course you are free to resume editing it at any time: I hope that you will. I remain interested in hearing your views on the specific editing points I posed earlier, and welcome any discussion on how to improve this article. Much of this comment does not appear to relate to that, unfortunately, and I don't propose to address it here. Deltahedron (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dioid

The usual definition of dioid is an idempotent semiring: that is, a+a=a. However, Gondran and Minoux (2008) p.28 define them in such a way that N,+,× is a dioid. Is there a usefdul terminolgy current for the two defnitions? Deltahedron (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Endo a semiring?

I'm pretty sure that Endo isn't a full semiring, as composition doesn't distribute left over point wise addition:

f _ = 1

g _ = 1

h _ = 0

f . (g + h) = (f . g) + (f . h)

1 = 1 + 1

It's a near-semiring, I think. Doisin (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think possibly there is some textbook somewhere that lists Endo as a semiring, possibly because they don't include left distribution as a semiring law. (And that's why the correction keeps getting removed). It might be useful to include the short example above to demonstrate that Endo isn't a semiring according to this article's definition of semirings.

Doisin (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Endomorphisms of a commutative monoid do form a semiring. Your f is not an endomorphism. 67.86.129.121 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Missing Properties Section?

I've noticed that most articles on algebraic structures have a section called properties, where commonly useful consequences of the structure's axioms are listed. Maybe someone familiar with semi-ring theory could add such a section?

Rgs

Rings without additive inverses or multiplicative identities. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternative definition?

Hi, is there such a thing as a near-miss of a ring that is not necessarily a ring because it doesn't necessarily have additive invertibility, but it does have additive cancellation? In other words, a + c = b + c implies a = b, even though c need not have an inverse. Then the multiplicative annihilator property could still be proven instead of assumed. OneWeirdDude (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semiring of sets

What's this definition doing in this article? If there's any relationship between the set-theoretic structure and the algebraic structure it should be clarified, otherwise this should be moved elsewhere. viiii (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed.—Emil J. 10:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)