On the flipside, knowing that a ring is "like a group (which we already covered), with another operation that follows these axioms" is useful, and still mostly rigorous.
It's better than "eh just use it a lot and you'll figure it out."
It's better than "eh just use it a lot and you'll figure it out."
The analogue of this approach in Haskell is probably something like sections 1 and 2 of "Tackling the awkward squad: monadic input/output, concurrency, exceptions, and foreign-language calls in Haskell" [1], which is quite an old paper (from around 2000 or something?). It does not even contain the word "monoid", but instead shows what an IO action is, and how functions like >> and >>= can be used to sequence and thread them. It also provides a lot of context as to why monadic IO exists. After reading this, a new programmer could start playing around with making new IO actions using these operators. After reading about monoid objects, a new programmer is no closer to being able to write a Haskell program.
[1]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
For education, there is a happy medium between providing theoretical context and hand-waving over technicalities and learning by example.
Very nice diagram though.
That is my impression of the top level comment's point, and I largely agree with it. If you understand what a group is, I can explain what a ring is to you in a very straightforward way that still shows you the connections between the two things. But setting up category theoretic language would take up a nontrivial portion of the course itself, and at the end you'd have a much less specific understanding of the relevant theorems on rings and groups. You'd be missing all the trees for the forest.
My perspective on this is basically informed by the following: I like category theory a lot. I've chatted with Baez about this on a few occasions and insofar as I need to use algebra, I like the category theoretic formalisms that come along with it. I think if you had students with a lot of mathematical maturity but no prior exposure to abstract algebra (except maybe a rigorous treatment of linear algebra), you could accomplish what you're proposing.
To your point, one of my favorite math textbooks is Aluffi's Chapter 0. You're probably familiar with it, but if not: it builds up abstract algebra in a rigorous and modern fashion alongside category theory. However, there are a few caveats here:
1. Aluffi explicitly states it's a textbook for upper level undergrads and preferably graduates. In my experience, when authors say this they actually mean it's appropriate as a year one graduate course. That's not the time to learn abstract algebra for the first time!
2. Aluffi does a great job of covering things like morphisms and categories, but the size of the book is massive. He doesn't have any nontrivial coverage of deeper category theoretic concepts like functors until much later in the book; it's probably far enough in that you couldn't reasonably cover it in a single semester course.
3. I really don't think most math majors would benefit from it. Those who are applied math majors will get questionable benefit from a slower, more comprehensive approach to algebra than a faster approach that lets them get to applications. Moreover, not all pure math majors have the mathematical maturity to approach category theory before grad school. Proofs in traditional abstract algebra are a lot less abstract than category theory, and it's easier to motivate them even if they aren't ultimately as elegant.
Perhaps the third course is a nice place to start introducing some category theory, since they will now have actual examples on which to draw, and learn about the unifying concepts of "morphism", "categorical product", and so on. They might even be ready for some interesting functors, such as the fundamental group of a topological space.
If you were to teach category theory as a very first course, what would you teach? What examples of categories do you have? What examples of functors?
But understanding bilinearity and its connection to tensor products is the key part of changing between those definitions, and also the most useful step to understand. The final description is pretty uninteresting in contrast with universal mapping properties of a tensor product.
Turns out, not so much, though. The ring theory bears surprisingly little resemblance to the group theory, to the point that these concepts seem to have nothing to do with each other...
Do you seriously mean to suggest there's no pedagogical value in using groups to teach rings?
Otherwise I agree with you, there's a lot of pedagogical value in combining coverage of algebraic structures.