The equivalence of a set and its permutations.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equivalence of a set and its permutations within the context of group theory. It clarifies that the subsets ##\mathfrak{Q} \subseteq \mathfrak{R}## and ##\mathfrak{K} \subseteq \mathfrak{S}^{\mathfrak{R}}## serve to illustrate the properties of one-to-one (injective) and onto (surjective) mappings represented by the permutation ##\sigma##. The properties of closure, injectivity, and surjectivity are emphasized, confirming that the author aimed to introduce notations and summarize these fundamental concepts. The source of this discussion is the book "Fundamentals of Mathematics" by MIT Press.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of group theory concepts, specifically permutations.
  • Familiarity with the definitions of injective and surjective functions.
  • Knowledge of set theory, particularly subsets and mappings.
  • Basic comprehension of mathematical notation and symbols used in algebra.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of permutations in group theory using "Fundamentals of Mathematics" by MIT Press.
  • Learn about injective and surjective functions in detail, focusing on their implications in algebra.
  • Explore the concept of closure in mathematical sets and its significance in group operations.
  • Research non-standard definitions in modern algebra and their impact on mathematical understanding.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of group theory and permutations.

Odious Suspect
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
The following is from an introduction to groups. It is not clear to me why the authors bothered to introduce the subset ##\mathfrak{Q}\subseteq \mathfrak{R}## and a subset ##\mathfrak{K}\subseteq \mathfrak{S}^{\mathfrak{R}}## into the discussion. (3) seems to follow trivially from the one-to-one and onto properties of ##\sigma##. Am I missing something here?

"Let ##\mathfrak{R}## be a set, which we shall now call a space in order to distinguish it from other sets to be considered later; and correspondingly, its elements ##P,Q,R,\ldots## will be called points. Let ##\mathfrak{S}^{\mathfrak{R}}## be the set of permutations on ##\mathfrak{R}## : that is, the set of one-to-one mappings of ##\mathfrak{R}## onto itself. If ##\sigma \in \mathfrak{S}^{\mathfrak{R}}## we denote by ##P\sigma## the image of the point ##P\in \mathfrak{R}## under the mapping ##\sigma##. Then ##\sigma## has the following properties:$$\text{(1)} P\sigma \in \mathfrak{R} \text{ for all } P\in \mathfrak{R}$$

$$\text{(2)} P_1\sigma =P_2\sigma \text{ implies } P_1=P_2 $$

More generally, if for a subset ##\mathfrak{Q}\subseteq \mathfrak{R}## and a subset ##\mathfrak{K}\subseteq \mathfrak{S}^{\mathfrak{R}}## we denote by ##\mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{R}## the set of elements ## P\sigma, P\in \mathfrak{Q}, \sigma \in \mathfrak{K}## then the fact that ##\sigma## is a mapping onto ##\mathfrak{R}## is equivalent to

$$\text{(3)} \mathfrak{R}\sigma =\mathfrak{R}\text{.}$$"There is a footnote as follows: "No distinction is made here between an element and the set containing it as the sole member. Thus ##\sigma## in (3) in fact represents {##\sigma##}, the set consisting only of ##\sigma##."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think you're missing anything. It is, as you say, a trivial consequence.
 
(1) is closure or into, (2) one-to-one or injective and (3) onto or surjective. I think the author only wanted to introduce his notations and summarize what "one-to-one onto" means.
 
fresh_42 said:
(1) is closure or into, (2) one-to-one or injective and (3) onto or surjective. I think the author only wanted to introduce his notations and summarize what "one-to-one onto" means.

Indeed. Before introducing ##\mathfrak{Q}\mathfrak{R}##, I didn't have permission to write (3). I also now realize that the "space" being introduced is not the set forming the group being exhibited. That set is ##\mathfrak{S}^{\mathfrak{R}}##, and the operation is the product of permutations.

My source is: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/fundamentals-mathematics-0 Volume 1. IIRC, their definitions for some of the structures in modern algebra are non-standard. It's sure no page-turner.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
919
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
975
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K