What Constitutes an Algebraic Structure in Set Theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sponsoredwalk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets Structures
sponsoredwalk
Messages
531
Reaction score
5
I just found out that the words "algebraic structure" have a precise definition and that this
notion is not just common language!

DEFINITION: An algebraic structure consists of one or
more sets closed under one or more operations, satisfying
some axioms
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~gibson/Teaching/MAT7003/L5-AlgebraicStructures.pdf

In abstract algebra, an algebraic structure consists of one or more sets, called underlying sets
or carriers or sorts, closed under one or more operations, satisfying some axioms.
link

An Algebraic Structure is defined by the tuple <A, o_1, ...,o_k;R_1,...,R_m;c_1,...,c_k>
where;
A is a non-empty set,
o_i is a function A^{pi} \ : \ A \ \rightarrow \ A

R_j is a relation on A

p_i is a positive integer

c_i is an element of A

link (Ch. 2)

Then below this definition they give another (equivalent) definition:

An algebraic structure is a triple <A,O,C> where:

A ≠ ∅

O \ = \ U^n_{i = 1} \ o_i where o_i are i-ary operations

C ⊆ A is the constant set.

So based on this I have three questions:

1: How is this concept explained in terms of set theory?

I am thinking that it follows from the idea of a "structured set".
Unfortunately, I can find basically nothing on this concept from browsing online.
The only sources I have found are the one in the last link, page 23 of Vaught Set Theory
which is extremely short & also Bourbaki's Set Theory book - but it's buried after 250+
pages of prerequisite theory. There may just be a different name for this concept, idk...

2: Could you recommend any sources (book recommendations)
discussing Structures on Sets as they arise in ZFC theory?


If there's a book that describes how structures on sets fall out of ZFC theory in a
book describing ZFC that would be optimal, for all I know every book does this just
under a different name.

3: Could you recommend any sources explaining Algebraic Structures in terms of sets?

I started a different thread a while ago trying to ground a vector space in terms of
set theory making everything very explicit, the answer I got was structured to follow
patterns that I now recognise as coming out of this idea of algebraic structures &
basically I'd just like to read how this concept is defined and originates from set theory
with all the prerequisite set theory knowledge that goes with it being built up too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Two good keywords:
  • Universal Algebra
  • Model Theory
 
This is probably not what you're looking for, but these references are the closest I get to answering your problem:

1) http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~snburris/htdocs/ualg.html is a very good introduction to algebraic structures.

2) http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~vddries/410notes/main.dvi treats algebraic structures from a more fundamental point-of-view. This is probably what you want, but it's quite advanced. The theory you want is in section 2.3...
 
micromass said:
2) http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~vddries/410notes/main.dvi treats algebraic structures from a more fundamental point-of-view. This is probably what you want, but it's quite advanced. The theory you want is in section 2.3...

Exactly what I was hoping for! Cheers/Ty/Slainte/Salute/Nostrovia! :biggrin:
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top