| Revision as of 10:31, 5 February 2002 editConversion script (talk | contribs)10 editsm Automated conversion← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:23, 5 February 2002 edit undo132.146.192.xxx (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| Any thoughts before I wade on in and make changes? | Any thoughts before I wade on in and make changes? | ||
| ---- | |||
| "This was our first example of a non-abelian group, because the operation o here is not commutative as the table shows. " | |||
| If the table did show commutativity, would it be symmetrical about the diagonal from top left to bottom right? | |||
| TimJ | |||
| 5 Feb 2002 | |||
Revision as of 11:23, 5 February 2002
We currently have two different group pages: Mathematical group and Mathematical Group. I suggest simply deleting Mathematical group and redirecting it to Mathematical Group.
- Seconded, with one caveat: the title of the final article should be "Mathematical group" to comply with naming standards. --AxelBoldt
Done.
Zundark, 2001-08-11
The axiom of closure:
(Closure) for all a and b in G, a * b belong to G.
is superfluous, by definition of a binary operation. It's worth mentioning that closure follows from the definition, though.
The test of closure in the examples is in fact a test that the described mapping is inded a binary operation.
Any thoughts before I wade on in and make changes?
"This was our first example of a non-abelian group, because the operation o here is not commutative as the table shows. " If the table did show commutativity, would it be symmetrical about the diagonal from top left to bottom right? TimJ 5 Feb 2002