Algebra Not So Fundamental? Study of Functions & Sets More So

  • Thread starter Thread starter tgt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Observation
tgt
Messages
519
Reaction score
2
I use to think that algebra was very fundamental but it now seems not the case. The study of functions (in general) and sets would be more fundamental. Just an observation. What do you people think?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
tgt said:
The study of functions (in general) and sets would be more fundamental.
The moment you start to do that -- you could get right back to algebra. e.g. categories.

"Fundamental" is such an incredibly vague term, though...
 
Hurkyl said:
The moment you start to do that -- you could get right back to algebra. e.g. categories.

"Fundamental" is such an incredibly vague term, though...

You could but let's say for up to graduate level, algebra involves a special kind of function called a homomorphism and consists of sets with special properties such as binary operation.

functions and sets.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top