I The adjective "finite" applied to algebraic structures

Stephen Tashi
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Messages
7,864
Reaction score
1,602
TL;DR Summary
Are there many examples in algebra where the adjective "finite" (by itself) means "finitely generated" or "finite dimensional" or finite in some other sense than being a finite set?
The adjective "finite" applied to many algebraic structures (e.g. groups, fields) indicates a set with a finite number of elements. However, (as I understand it) "finite algebra" refers to a finitely generated algebra. Are there other examples where "finite" means finite in some respect but not necessarily finite as a set?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Stephen Tashi said:
Summary:: Are there many examples in algebra where the adjective "finite" (by itself) means "finitely generated" or "finite dimensional" or finite in some other sense than being a finite set?

The adjective "finite" applied to many algebraic structures (e.g. groups, fields) indicates a set with a finite number of elements. However, (as I understand it) "finite algebra" refers to a finitely generated algebra. Are there other examples where "finite" means finite in some respect but not necessarily finite as a set?
I wouldn't call a finitely generated algebra just finite. This is misleading, as it could mean that the set of elements of the algebra is finite. There is a reason why it is called finitely generated, in which case the set of generators is finite. So in any case there is some finite set if we use this adjective, be it generators, basis elements, or the entire set.

Your question doesn't make much sense to me.
 
fresh_42 said:
Your question doesn't make much sense to me.

Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_lattice_representation_problem

The finite lattice representation problem asks whether the same is true for finite lattices and finite algebras.
Is a "finite algebra" a finite set?
 
I assume it should better be "finite dimensional" in both cases, lattice and algebra. But since I have never heard, nor do I have an imagination of a finite lattice, it could as well be finite sets. In that case it will inevitably imply a finite field.

The quotation 'Intervals in subgroup lattices of finite groups.' indicates finite sets. We have two different words, Gitter = lattice and Verband = lattice order. So it seems we are talking about lattice orders here. The question is thus whether such a (finite) lattice (order) can be written as a quotient algebra. Now as a quotient it could mean finite algebras or finite dimensional algebras, because the quotient is a set of equivalence classes and the word finite alone does not indicate what is canceled out. I assume, however, that actually finite algebras (finite set of elements) are meant, since otherwise we would say finite dimensional or finite generated. I would search for and look into the original paper in this case to be clear.
 
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...
Back
Top