This post has been replaced by the post A slow introduction to category theory.

# Tag Archives: arrow

# Introducing abstract topics

I have been busy for the past several years revising abstractmath.org (abmath). Now I believe, perhaps foolishly, that most of the articles in abmath have reached beta, so now it is time for something new.

For some time I have been considering writing **introductions to topics in abstract math**, some typically studied by undergraduates and some taken by scientists and engineers. The topics I have in mind to do first include **group theory** and **category theory**.

The point of these introductions is to get the student started at the *very beginning of the topic*, when some students give up in total confusion. They meet and fall off of what I have called the **abstraction cliff**, which is discussed here and also in my blog posts Very early difficulties and Very early difficulties II.

I may have stolen the phrase “abstraction cliff” from someone else.

## Group theory

Group theory sets several traps for beginning students.

### Multiplication table

- A student may balk when a small finite group is defined using a set of letters in a
**multiplication table**.

“But you didn’t say what the letters*are*or what the multiplication*is*?” - Such a definition is an
**abstract definition**, in contrast to the definition of “prime”, for example, which is stated in terms of already known entities, namely the integers. - The multiplication table of a group tells you
*exactly*what the binary operation is and any set with an operation that makes such a table correct is an example of the group being defined. - A student who has
*no understanding of abstraction*is going to be totally lost in this situation. It is quite possible that the professor has never even mentioned the concept of abstract definition. The professor is probably like most successful mathematicians: when they were students, they understood abstraction without having to have it explained, and possibly without even noticing they did so.

### Cosets

**Cosets**are a real killer. Some students at this stage are nowhere near thinking of a set as an**object**or a**thing**. The concept of applying a binary operation on a pair of sets (or any other mathematical objects with internal structure) is completely foreign to them. Did anyone ever talk to them about**mathematical objects**?- The consequence of this early difficulty is that such a student will find it hard to understand what a
**quotient group**is, and that is one of the major concepts you get early in a group theory course. - The conceptual problems with multiplication of cosets is similar to those with pointwise addition of functions. Given two functions $f,g:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$, you define $f+g$ to be the function \[(f+g)(x):=f(x)+g(x)\] Along with pointwise multiplication, this makes the space of functions $\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ a ring with nice properties.
- But you have to understand that each element of the ring is a
*function*thought of as a single math object. The values of the function are*properties*of the function, but they are not elements of the ring. (You can include the real numbers in the ring as constant functions, but don’t confuse me with facts.) - Similarly the elements of the quotient group are math objects called cosets. They are not elements of the original group. (To add to the confusion, they are also blocks of a congruence.)

### Isomorphic groups

- Many books, and many professors (including me) regard two
**isomorphic groups**as the*same*. I remember getting anguished questions: “But the elements of $\mathbb{Z}_2$ are*equivalence classes*and the elements of the group of permutations of $\{1,2\}$ are*functions*.” - I admit that regarding two isomorphic groups as the same needs to be treated carefully when, unlike $\mathbb{Z}_2$, the group has a nontrivial automorphism group. ($\mathbb{Z}_3$ is “the same as itself” in two different ways.) But you don’t have to bring that up the first time you attack that subject, any more than you have to bring up the fact that the category of sets does not have a set of objects on the first day you define categories.

## Category theory

Category theory causes similar troubles. Beginning college math majors don’t usually meet it early. But category theory has begun to be used in other fields, so plenty of computer science students, people dealing with databases, and so on are suddenly trying to understand categories and failing to do so *at the very start*.

The G&G post A new kind of introduction to category theory constitutes an alpha draft of the first part of an article introducing category theory following the ideas of this post.

### Objects and arrows are abstract

- Every once in a while someone asks a question on Math StackExchange that shows they have no idea that an object of a category need not have elements and that morphisms need not be functions that take elements to elements.
- One questioner understood that the claim that a morphism need not be a function meant that it might be a multivalued function.

### Duality

- That misunderstanding comes up with
**duality**. The definition of dual category requires turning the arrows around. Even if the original morphism takes elements to elements, the opposite morphism does not have to take elements to elements. In the case of the category of sets, an arrow in $\text{Set}^{op}$*cannot*take elements to elements — for example, the opposite of the function $\emptyset\to\{1,2\}$. - The fact that there is a concrete category
*equivalent*to $\text{Set}^{op}$ is a red herring. It involves*different sets*: the function corresponding to the function just mentioned goes from a four-element set to a singleton. But in the category $\text{Set}^{op}$*as defined*it is*simply an arrow*, not a function.

### Not understanding how to use definitions

- Some of the questioners on Math Stack Exchange ask how to prove a statement that is quite simple to prove directly from the definitions of the terms involved, but what they
*ask*and what they are obviously*trying*to do is to*gain an intuition*in order to understand why the statement is true. This is*backward*— the first thing you should do is use the definition (at least in the first few days of a math class — after that you have to use theorems as well! - I have discussed this in the blog post Insights into mathematical definitions (which gives references to other longer discussions by math ed people). See also the abmath section Rewrite according to the definitions.

## How an introduction to a math topic needs to be written

The following list shows some of the tactics I am thinking of using in the math topic introductions. It is quite likely that I will conclude that some tactics won’t work, and I am sure that tactics I haven’t mentioned here will be used.

- The introductions should not go very far into the subject. Instead, they should bring an exhaustive and explicit discussion of how to get into the
*very earliest part of the topic*, perhaps the definition, some examples, and a few simple theorems. I doubt that a group theory student who hasn’t mastered abstraction and what proofs are about will ever be ready to learn the Sylow theorems. - You can’t do examples and definitions simultaneously, but you can come close by going through an example
**step by step**, checking each part of the definition. - When you introduce an axiom, give an example of how you would prove that some binary operation satisfies the axiom. For example, if the axiom is that every element of a group must have an inverse,
*right then and there*prove that addition on the integers satisfies the axiom and disprove that multiplication on integers satisies it. - When the definition uses some undefined math objects, point out immediately with examples that you can’t have any intuition about them except what the axioms give you. (In contrast to definition of division of integers, where you and the student already have intuitions about the objects.)
- Make explicit the possible problems with abstractmath.org and Gyre&Gimble) will indeed find it difficult to become mathematical researchers — but not impossible!
- But that is not the point. All college math professors will get people who will go into theoretical computing science, and therefore need to understand category theory, or into particle physics, and need to understand groups, and so on.
- By being clear at the earliest stages of how
*mathematicians actually do math*, they will produce more people in other fields who actually have some grasp of what is going on with the topics they have studied in math classes, and hopefully will be willing to go back and learn some more math if some type of math rears its head in the theories of their field. - Besides, why do you want to alienate huge numbers of people from math, as our way of teaching in the past has done?
- “Our” means grammar school teachers, high school teachers and college professors.

There is a real split between students who want the definitions first

(most of whom don’t have the abstraction problems I am trying to overcome)

and those who really really think they need examples first (the majority)

because they don’t understand abstraction.

### Acknowledgment

Thanks to Kevin Clift for corrections.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.