This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The first section, the introduction, glosses a point: the set of words is the appropriate starting point only for associative algebras, otherwise, it needs to be the magma of binary trees. I will clarify/fix this later; I am going to an Easter party now. linas18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The main example of a free group is very confusing with respect to the formal definition. What corresponds to , , and in the example? Why does have a subscript 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eposse (talk • contribs) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
The notation refers to the Free group with 2 generators a and b. The set X is the set of generators, here {a, b}. In section "Definition", A denotes the free object, here anf i is the injection of X in A, which, here, maps a and b viewed as elements of the set X to themselve viewed as elements of the free group.
I agree that the article is badly written, in a pedantic style (systematic use of technical terms that are not mastered by most readers, the same thing can be comprehensibly said with few more words). D.Lazard (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Bug in the Definition?
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, I did not see that you did edit yestersay. I intended to revert the edits of today, concerning nlab references. I have restored your edits that are not for linking nlab. The removal of these links is explained in WP:USERGENERATED. D.Lazard (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
OK thanks, that makes sense. I've generally made exception for nlab because it is usually edited by authoritative authors in category theory like John Baez, and I'd seen it used as a reference in other articles (see Adjoint functors). But, I can see your point. Perhaps this could go under an "External links" section as in Category theory? Davidvandebunte (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.