Difference between revisions of "Talk:Monoid"

 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Monoids are important for category theory though, right? --[[User:ComplexZeta|ComplexZeta]] 00:01, 13 October 2006 (EDT)
 
Monoids are important for category theory though, right? --[[User:ComplexZeta|ComplexZeta]] 00:01, 13 October 2006 (EDT)
 +
 +
Yes, monoidal categories are reasonably important objects in category theory (or at least that's the sense I have), but I certainly am not prepared to write anything about them :)  --[[User:JBL|JBL]] 10:02, 13 October 2006 (EDT)
 +
 +
It is not good to say "monoid is a group without inverses". Sometimes we define a group using the definition of monoid. --[[User:Puuhikki|Puuhikki]] 14:46, 15 October 2006 (EDT)
 +
 +
I disagree -- as a primary definition, sure, that's less than ideal (since the reader has to already know what a group is), but as a secondary definition, why not?  For the vast majority of readers, it will be relating an object with which they have no familiarity to an object they know.  --[[User:JBL|JBL]] 15:50, 16 October 2006 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 14:50, 16 October 2006

Monoids are important for category theory though, right? --ComplexZeta 00:01, 13 October 2006 (EDT)

Yes, monoidal categories are reasonably important objects in category theory (or at least that's the sense I have), but I certainly am not prepared to write anything about them :) --JBL 10:02, 13 October 2006 (EDT)

It is not good to say "monoid is a group without inverses". Sometimes we define a group using the definition of monoid. --Puuhikki 14:46, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

I disagree -- as a primary definition, sure, that's less than ideal (since the reader has to already know what a group is), but as a secondary definition, why not? For the vast majority of readers, it will be relating an object with which they have no familiarity to an object they know. --JBL 15:50, 16 October 2006 (EDT)