LagrangeEuler
- 711
- 22
Is it mathematically correct to call any group operation in ##(G,\cdot)## composition?
The discussion revolves around whether it is mathematically correct to refer to any group operation in the context of a group (G, *) as composition. The scope includes theoretical considerations of mathematical terminology and notation related to group operations.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the terminology, with multiple competing views on whether the term "composition" is appropriate for group operations. Some participants advocate for its use, while others reject it in favor of more specific terms.
There is a lack of clarity regarding the definitions and contexts in which the term "composition" should be applied, particularly in distinguishing between operations in groups and function composition.
As long as you stay consistent, yes. Usually one wouldn't describe groups like ##\mathbb{Z}## by a dot as binary operator, or a matrix group like ##GL(n)## by an addition, but strictly speaking it doesn't matter which symbol for the operation is used. This changes however, if more than one operation is involved. So you may write ##a \circ b\, , \,a+b\, , \,a \cdot b\, , \,a * b## or simply ##ab##. But you should think about the readability: ##3 \cdot 5 = 8## in ##(\mathbb{Z},+)## might be quite disturbing.LagrangeEuler said:Is it mathematically correct to call any group operation in ##(G,\cdot)## composition?
Yes, although composition is used in some other contexts, e.g. composition series. So product orLagrangeEuler said:Thanks. I do not asked about notation but just calling. Is it fine to say that 3+5=8 composition of numbers 3 and 5 is 8
LagrangeEuler said:Thanks. I do not asked about notation but just calling. Is it fine to say that 3+5=8 composition of numbers 3 and 5 is 8
As this it's at least the operation in ##GL(n)##.micromass said:No, I would never call that composition. I have never seen it referred to as composition. Composition should be used for functions mainly.