The equivalence of a set and its permutations.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the introduction of subsets in the context of group theory, specifically focusing on the relationship between a set and its permutations. Participants examine the necessity and implications of defining subsets ##\mathfrak{Q}## and ##\mathfrak{K}##, as well as the properties of mappings in relation to these subsets.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of introducing subsets ##\mathfrak{Q}## and ##\mathfrak{K}##, suggesting that the conclusion in (3) seems trivial given the properties of the mapping ##\sigma##.
  • Another participant agrees, stating that the conclusion is indeed trivial and that no additional insights are missed.
  • Some participants clarify the meanings of the properties mentioned: (1) refers to closure or being onto, (2) refers to being one-to-one or injective, and (3) refers to being onto or surjective.
  • A participant notes that the author may have intended to introduce notations and summarize the concept of "one-to-one onto" rather than provide new insights.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the "space" being introduced, indicating that it is distinct from the set forming the group, which is ##\mathfrak{S}^{\mathfrak{R}}##.
  • One participant references a source text, indicating that the definitions used may be non-standard and expressing a lack of engagement with the material.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the introduction of the subsets may not add significant value to the discussion, viewing the conclusion as trivial. However, there is no consensus on the necessity of the author's approach or the clarity of the definitions provided.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of the definitions and the author's intentions, suggesting that the discussion may hinge on non-standard definitions and assumptions that are not fully articulated.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K