How Can Group Theory Describe Human Social Interactions?

rmas
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I have a question related to Group Theory and its interpretation from a social point of view.
if we suppose, that a group of Humans can be considered as an algebraic structure : a group (G,◦) with a set of elements and a set of axioms like closure, associativity, identity and invertibility.
How can we describe ◦ and the axioms in term of interactions and relations between humans (socially)
I was wondering if someone can give me an idea about this subject, or some pointers if it was already treated.
Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Would this work? It's just something that occurred to me a few weeks ago when I was first learning about groups. Let f stand for "friend", and e for "enemy", and * for "of my". We know that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and of course the friend of my friend is my friend, and the friend of my enemy is my enemy...

e * e = f
e * f = e
f * f = f
f * e = e

So we have closure. This structure is associative:

f * (e * e) = f * f = f
(f * e) * e = e * e = f

(f * f) * e = f * e = e
f * (f * e) = f * e = e

e * (f * e) = e * e = f
(e * f) * e = e * e = f

f * (e * f) = f * e = e
(f * e) * f = e * f = e

Notice that friend is the identity element, and that the inverse of enemy is enemy because

e * e = f

and the inverse of friend is friend because

f * f = f.

So I reckon that makes a group, and an abelian group at that since we also have commutativity.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top