86:
76:
55:
412:, ... } is not a group. In additive terms, I am saying if you start with 1 and add it to itself a bunch of times you get { 1, 2, 3, ... } or at best { 0, 1, 2, 3, ... } and -1 is not in { 0, 1, 2, 3, ... } and { 0, 1, 2, 3, ... } is not a group. You want to explicitly include an additive inverse like -1 so that you can cancel the additions. In a finite group this does not matter, but in infinite groups it can be a substantial problem.
165:
559:
I thought about "combination" without qualification, but since it has some unrelated technical meanings (like choosing 3 generators out of the set of 4 without regards to order), I thought it was good to be explicit. Generally people like to downplay the operation and any sentence I came up with using "apply" or "operate" had to promote the operation to more than a parenthetical prepositional phrase.
24:
558:
I changed "product" in the opening paragraph. Certainly product is correct to a mathematician, but certainly calling it a product and then having so many additive examples will confuse readers. I chose "combination" just because it allowed for a relatively short and minor change that sounded fine.
496:
To be clear, I am assuming you mean "my rationale for using the word product in this particular article is that it will make the opening sentence longer to use apply/combine/etc." and that you do not think this is a good rationale for using "product" in this article. Changing the word is fine by me,
242:
Whilst possibly strictly true, the reuse of S for the more general case is very confusing; careful reading resolves the issue, but using any other letter would avoid the problem entirely. Alteratively why not avoid S in the opening para and say simply "...a generating set of a group is a subset such
471:
Unless you have more rationale than this, I respectfully disagree. Integers with addition are an excellent model for groups, precisely because this group is neither a ring nor a field. I suspect that many schools introduce groups by using integers with addition as an example. For me, thinking of a
439:
group consisting of the integers under addition would fail because of calling the operator "product" instead of "addition", "sum", or just something abstract like "operator", "combine", or "apply". The naturalness and intuitiveness of these models mitigate against the use of "product" as the group
455:
The integers are not a very good model group, though they are reasonable as a model abelian group. The integers form a group under addition, but not under multiplication. Besides elements like 1/2 being outside the group, there is also the problem of 1/0 not being very well behaved at all. One
500:
As far as model groups go, there are basically two completely unrelated algebraic structures: abelian groups and groups. Now the definitions look pretty similar, and they are often first taught together, but basically the human pursuit of studying these two concepts are no more related than any
432:
This article uses the word "product" when referring to the group operator. I don't know much mathematics, but isn't it true that the arithmetic integer product operator (with identity element 1) cannot form a group since the inverse of most elements would not be members of the group (since they
476:
be written as 1, but 0, for the same reason (that it is incorrect in the most intuitive real-world model). 0 naturally concatenates with x (for example, in some computer programming languages, unlike 1) to yield x; 0+x = x in ordinary arithmetic. It seems clear to me that the word
280:
The lead paragraph is unnecessarily complicated. While I cannot provide a shorter paragraph, since I am not a mathematician, I believe that, for example, the phrase "and their inverses" can be omitted, since it is unnecessary in the definition of a generating set.
472:
group as "like" integer addition, a ring as "like" integers with addition and multiplication, and a field as "like" reals with addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division seems very natural. Also, the identity element of a group should
504:
Your reasons for thinking the integers are a good model group all strike me as very good reasons for it to be a model *abelian group* (surely it should be the first abelian group, followed by finite cyclics, the additive rationals, the
610:(there's no requirement for independence). Every type of algebraic structure has an analogous concept (usually called a generating set - the term "spanning set" for the vector space case is anomalous). --
532:(say on 3 points). Each of these groups has a natural action, either on vectors, on a geometric shape, or on "points". Group theory is very much concerned with groups acting on other things (consider
501:
other two areas of algebra. In fact the study of rings and the study of abelian groups are intimately related, while the study of groups is not particularly closely related to the study of rings.
142:
234:, the subgroup generated by S, is the smallest subgroup of G containing every element of S, meaning the intersection over all subgroups containing the elements of S; equivalently, <
226:'In abstract algebra, a generating set of a group G is a subset S such that every element of G can be expressed as the product of finitely many elements of S and their inverses.
513:(abelian groups being acted upon by a fixed ring), and I think it is a great way to get introduced to algebra. It's just very, very different than group theory.
639:
132:
178:
108:
634:
544:, the classical origins of group theory). Abelian group theory is very much concerned with abelian groups being acted upon by other things.
440:
operator. When we write "xx" instead of "x+x" (for brevity), I recommend that we think of the operator as "concatenate" instead of "add".
99:
60:
509:, and finally the group of rational numbers whose denominators are square-free). I was initially trained in abelian groups and
369:, ... } (by the definition of a group), adding it explicitly has no effect. Inverses are redundant in this context, no?
35:
239:
is the subgroup of all elements of G that can be expressed as the finite product of elements in S and their inverses.'
250:
208:
243:
that every element of the group can be expressed as the product.... of elements of that subset and their inverses"
456:
could change the word product in the opening sentence, but this will just make the sentence longer, not shorter.
302:
Omitting "and their inverses" leads to several confusions. For instance, an infinite cyclic group generated by {
187:
486:
445:
374:
292:
246:
497:
but I think it will make that sentence longer. I just didn't see how to satisfy your two requests at once.
584:
580:
564:
549:
461:
417:
343:
265:
41:
85:
591:
set. Has anyone else noted this similarity or seen it noted? Further discussion would be interesting.
517:
510:
435:
23:
596:
588:
107:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
482:
441:
370:
288:
193:
91:
75:
54:
615:
521:
560:
545:
541:
457:
413:
339:
261:
189:
164:
579:
This concept of a set of generators seems to me to be like the Group theory analogue of an
529:
506:
592:
525:
619:
600:
568:
553:
490:
465:
449:
421:
378:
347:
296:
269:
254:
628:
533:
191:
282:
611:
607:
104:
81:
537:
194:
158:
17:
334:, ... } if one allows empty products. One also needs to use
229:
More generally, if S is a subset of a group G, then <
306:} is not the set of finite products of elements of {
103:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
433:wouldn't be integers)? Thus, the simple intuitive
428:"Product" used as the name of the group operator
202:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
516:Good models for a plain old group are the
49:
481:is not appropriate for a group operator.
276:Lead paragraph unnecessarily complicated
51:
21:
212:when more than 4 sections are present.
7:
97:This article is within the scope of
40:It is of interest to the following
14:
640:Mid-priority mathematics articles
206:may be automatically archived by
117:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
606:It's actually the analogue of a
518:group of invertible 2x2 matrices
163:
120:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
84:
74:
53:
22:
520:, groups of rotations (say the
384:I'm afraid this is incorrect.
137:This article has been rated as
1:
620:15:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
601:14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
569:07:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
554:07:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
491:02:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
466:19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
450:02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
422:06:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
379:01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
348:19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
297:02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
283:One-sentence definition of a
270:19:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
111:and see a list of open tasks.
635:C-Class mathematics articles
255:13:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
656:
581:algebraically independent
136:
69:
48:
575:Relation to independence
388:is not a member of { 1,
143:project's priority scale
310:}. That set is just {
219:Multiplicities of Esses
100:WikiProject Mathematics
209:Lowercase sigmabot III
30:This article is rated
589:linearly independent
357:is a member of { 1,
123:mathematics articles
260:This is now fixed.
92:Mathematics portal
36:content assessment
522:icosahedral group
247:Julian I Do Stuff
216:
215:
157:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
647:
542:invariant theory
322:, ... } or { 1,
223:Opening para's:
211:
195:
167:
159:
125:
124:
121:
118:
115:
94:
89:
88:
78:
71:
70:
65:
57:
50:
33:
27:
26:
18:
655:
654:
650:
649:
648:
646:
645:
644:
625:
624:
577:
530:symmetric group
430:
400:, ... }. { 1,
278:
221:
207:
196:
190:
172:
122:
119:
116:
113:
112:
90:
83:
63:
34:on Knowledge's
31:
12:
11:
5:
653:
651:
643:
642:
637:
627:
626:
623:
622:
576:
573:
572:
571:
556:
526:dihedral group
514:
502:
498:
469:
468:
429:
426:
425:
424:
351:
350:
285:generating set
277:
274:
273:
272:
220:
217:
214:
213:
201:
198:
197:
192:
188:
186:
183:
182:
174:
173:
168:
162:
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
135:
129:
128:
126:
109:the discussion
96:
95:
79:
67:
66:
58:
46:
45:
39:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
652:
641:
638:
636:
633:
632:
630:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
574:
570:
566:
562:
557:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:Galois theory
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
512:
508:
507:PrĂĽfer groups
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
483:David spector
480:
475:
467:
463:
459:
454:
453:
452:
451:
447:
443:
442:David spector
438:
437:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
371:David spector
368:
364:
360:
356:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
289:David spector
287:
286:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
232:
227:
224:
218:
210:
205:
200:
199:
185:
184:
181:
180:
176:
175:
171:
166:
161:
160:
144:
140:
134:
131:
130:
127:
110:
106:
102:
101:
93:
87:
82:
80:
77:
73:
72:
68:
62:
59:
56:
52:
47:
43:
37:
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
608:spanning set
578:
478:
473:
470:
434:
431:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
366:
362:
358:
354:
352:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
284:
279:
245:
241:
235:
230:
228:
225:
222:
203:
177:
169:
139:Mid-priority
138:
98:
64:Mid‑priority
42:WikiProjects
15:
561:JackSchmidt
546:JackSchmidt
458:JackSchmidt
414:JackSchmidt
340:JackSchmidt
262:JackSchmidt
114:Mathematics
105:mathematics
61:Mathematics
629:Categories
583:set and a
538:Lie groups
528:), or the
353:But since
593:LokiClock
204:365 days
170:Archives
612:Zundark
511:modules
479:product
141:on the
32:C-class
38:scale.
587:, or
585:basis
524:or a
436:model
238:: -->
233:: -->
616:talk
597:talk
565:talk
550:talk
487:talk
462:talk
446:talk
418:talk
375:talk
344:talk
293:talk
266:talk
251:talk
540:or
536:or
474:not
410:xxx
398:xxx
367:xxx
332:xxx
320:xxx
133:Mid
631::
618:)
599:)
567:)
552:)
489:)
464:)
448:)
420:)
408:,
406:xx
404:,
396:,
394:xx
392:,
377:)
365:,
363:xx
361:,
346:)
338:.
330:,
328:xx
326:,
318:,
316:xx
314:,
295:)
268:)
253:)
614:(
595:(
563:(
548:(
485:(
460:(
444:(
416:(
402:x
390:x
386:x
373:(
359:x
355:x
342:(
336:x
324:x
312:x
308:x
304:x
291:(
264:(
249:(
236:S
231:S
179:1
145:.
44::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
