Difference between revisions of "Talk:Monoid"
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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) | 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)
