How did Kazuo Matsuzaka come to think of this? (Group Theory)












2












$begingroup$


I am reading "An Introduction to Algebraic Systems" by Kazuo Matsuzaka.



There is the following problem about group theory in this book:



Let $G$ be a non-empty set.

"$/$" is a binary operation on $G$.

"$/$" satisfies the following 4 properties:




  1. $a/a = b/b.$

  2. $a/(b/b)=a.$

  3. $(a/a)/(b/c)=c/b.$

  4. $(a/c)/(b/c)=a/b.$


We define $a*b :=a/((b/b)/b)$.



Show that $(G, *)$ is a group.



I think this fact is very complicated.

How did Matsuzaka come to think of this?



How did Matsuzaka choose this 4 properties?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    These are just the properties we would have if we already had a group and defined $a/b = ab^{-1}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    Jan 9 at 7:27










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Tobias Kildetoft. But how did Matsuzaka choose this 4 properties?
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 9 at 7:33










  • $begingroup$
    If we define $a/b := ab^{-1}$, there are infinitely many properties that "$/$" satisfies.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 9 at 7:36












  • $begingroup$
    This might be a better fit for hsm.se.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Jan 9 at 7:39






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Surely this stuff goes back at least to G. Higman and B. H. Neumann in 1952, in their work which gives a single axiom for groups: $x / ((((x / x) / y) / z) / (((x / x) / x) / z)) = y$. (Higman and B. H. Neumann. Groups as groupoids with one law.)
    $endgroup$
    – ancientmathematician
    Jan 9 at 8:03
















2












$begingroup$


I am reading "An Introduction to Algebraic Systems" by Kazuo Matsuzaka.



There is the following problem about group theory in this book:



Let $G$ be a non-empty set.

"$/$" is a binary operation on $G$.

"$/$" satisfies the following 4 properties:




  1. $a/a = b/b.$

  2. $a/(b/b)=a.$

  3. $(a/a)/(b/c)=c/b.$

  4. $(a/c)/(b/c)=a/b.$


We define $a*b :=a/((b/b)/b)$.



Show that $(G, *)$ is a group.



I think this fact is very complicated.

How did Matsuzaka come to think of this?



How did Matsuzaka choose this 4 properties?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    These are just the properties we would have if we already had a group and defined $a/b = ab^{-1}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    Jan 9 at 7:27










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Tobias Kildetoft. But how did Matsuzaka choose this 4 properties?
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 9 at 7:33










  • $begingroup$
    If we define $a/b := ab^{-1}$, there are infinitely many properties that "$/$" satisfies.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 9 at 7:36












  • $begingroup$
    This might be a better fit for hsm.se.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Jan 9 at 7:39






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Surely this stuff goes back at least to G. Higman and B. H. Neumann in 1952, in their work which gives a single axiom for groups: $x / ((((x / x) / y) / z) / (((x / x) / x) / z)) = y$. (Higman and B. H. Neumann. Groups as groupoids with one law.)
    $endgroup$
    – ancientmathematician
    Jan 9 at 8:03














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


I am reading "An Introduction to Algebraic Systems" by Kazuo Matsuzaka.



There is the following problem about group theory in this book:



Let $G$ be a non-empty set.

"$/$" is a binary operation on $G$.

"$/$" satisfies the following 4 properties:




  1. $a/a = b/b.$

  2. $a/(b/b)=a.$

  3. $(a/a)/(b/c)=c/b.$

  4. $(a/c)/(b/c)=a/b.$


We define $a*b :=a/((b/b)/b)$.



Show that $(G, *)$ is a group.



I think this fact is very complicated.

How did Matsuzaka come to think of this?



How did Matsuzaka choose this 4 properties?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am reading "An Introduction to Algebraic Systems" by Kazuo Matsuzaka.



There is the following problem about group theory in this book:



Let $G$ be a non-empty set.

"$/$" is a binary operation on $G$.

"$/$" satisfies the following 4 properties:




  1. $a/a = b/b.$

  2. $a/(b/b)=a.$

  3. $(a/a)/(b/c)=c/b.$

  4. $(a/c)/(b/c)=a/b.$


We define $a*b :=a/((b/b)/b)$.



Show that $(G, *)$ is a group.



I think this fact is very complicated.

How did Matsuzaka come to think of this?



How did Matsuzaka choose this 4 properties?







abstract-algebra group-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 9 at 7:34







tchappy ha

















asked Jan 9 at 7:21









tchappy hatchappy ha

783412




783412








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    These are just the properties we would have if we already had a group and defined $a/b = ab^{-1}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    Jan 9 at 7:27










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Tobias Kildetoft. But how did Matsuzaka choose this 4 properties?
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 9 at 7:33










  • $begingroup$
    If we define $a/b := ab^{-1}$, there are infinitely many properties that "$/$" satisfies.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 9 at 7:36












  • $begingroup$
    This might be a better fit for hsm.se.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Jan 9 at 7:39






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Surely this stuff goes back at least to G. Higman and B. H. Neumann in 1952, in their work which gives a single axiom for groups: $x / ((((x / x) / y) / z) / (((x / x) / x) / z)) = y$. (Higman and B. H. Neumann. Groups as groupoids with one law.)
    $endgroup$
    – ancientmathematician
    Jan 9 at 8:03














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    These are just the properties we would have if we already had a group and defined $a/b = ab^{-1}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    Jan 9 at 7:27










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Tobias Kildetoft. But how did Matsuzaka choose this 4 properties?
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 9 at 7:33










  • $begingroup$
    If we define $a/b := ab^{-1}$, there are infinitely many properties that "$/$" satisfies.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 9 at 7:36












  • $begingroup$
    This might be a better fit for hsm.se.
    $endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Jan 9 at 7:39






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Surely this stuff goes back at least to G. Higman and B. H. Neumann in 1952, in their work which gives a single axiom for groups: $x / ((((x / x) / y) / z) / (((x / x) / x) / z)) = y$. (Higman and B. H. Neumann. Groups as groupoids with one law.)
    $endgroup$
    – ancientmathematician
    Jan 9 at 8:03








2




2




$begingroup$
These are just the properties we would have if we already had a group and defined $a/b = ab^{-1}$.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Jan 9 at 7:27




$begingroup$
These are just the properties we would have if we already had a group and defined $a/b = ab^{-1}$.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Jan 9 at 7:27












$begingroup$
Thank you very much, Tobias Kildetoft. But how did Matsuzaka choose this 4 properties?
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 9 at 7:33




$begingroup$
Thank you very much, Tobias Kildetoft. But how did Matsuzaka choose this 4 properties?
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 9 at 7:33












$begingroup$
If we define $a/b := ab^{-1}$, there are infinitely many properties that "$/$" satisfies.
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 9 at 7:36






$begingroup$
If we define $a/b := ab^{-1}$, there are infinitely many properties that "$/$" satisfies.
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 9 at 7:36














$begingroup$
This might be a better fit for hsm.se.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Jan 9 at 7:39




$begingroup$
This might be a better fit for hsm.se.
$endgroup$
– J.G.
Jan 9 at 7:39




3




3




$begingroup$
Surely this stuff goes back at least to G. Higman and B. H. Neumann in 1952, in their work which gives a single axiom for groups: $x / ((((x / x) / y) / z) / (((x / x) / x) / z)) = y$. (Higman and B. H. Neumann. Groups as groupoids with one law.)
$endgroup$
– ancientmathematician
Jan 9 at 8:03




$begingroup$
Surely this stuff goes back at least to G. Higman and B. H. Neumann in 1952, in their work which gives a single axiom for groups: $x / ((((x / x) / y) / z) / (((x / x) / x) / z)) = y$. (Higman and B. H. Neumann. Groups as groupoids with one law.)
$endgroup$
– ancientmathematician
Jan 9 at 8:03










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Let me try to guess what can have come into their mind.



First of all, as mentioned in the comments, these were found in order to mimick the properties of $(a,b) mapsto ab^{-1}$ in a group.




  1. To get a group from the single operation $/$, we need to recover the neutral element. Bit $e= aa^{-1}=a/a$ for any $a$. So to get $e$ we need to have $a/a=b/b$.


  2. If we call $e$ the common value of $b/b$, we need it to be a neutral element : $a/e = ae^{-1}= ae= a$. Hence $a/(b/b) = a$.


  3. We need $e$ to also be neutral on the left : we need to say how $e/(b/c)$ relates to $b/c$, but since there is an inversion in the process, we need to put $c/b$.


  4. At this point you have recovered the neutral element, and part of the inversion. Still you have no law concerning general $a,b,c$ that can account for associativity.



This is where 4 comes in. It relates a general $a,b,c$ and in terms of $ab^{-1}$ is : $(ac^{-1})(bc^{-1})^{-1} = ab^{-1}$. This means (thanks to 3. and to what it tells us about $(fg)^{-1}$ ) $(ac^{-1})(cb^{-1}) = ab^{-1}$. So this is a version of associativity in terms of $/$.



Now we have recovered the neutral element, the inversion, and associativity : we've got a group.



Note that analyzing where these laws come from tells you a great deal about how to prove that $(G, *)$ is a group, because you now have a clear route.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Max.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 10 at 12:23



















3












$begingroup$

These are common properties of fractions.





  1. $1 = 1$,


  2. $a/1 = a$,


  3. $1/(b/c) = c/b$, if $b neq 0, c neq 0$, and


  4. $frac{a/c}{b/c} = a/b$, if $b neq 0, c neq 0$.


This is not all the properties of fractions of integers. So this describes an algebraic system with division of nonzero quantities only guaranteed to have the listed properties. If you think of another property of fractions that isn't a consequence of the above, then the algebraic system described above need not exhibit that property.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Eric Towers.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 10 at 12:22












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3067177%2fhow-did-kazuo-matsuzaka-come-to-think-of-this-group-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3












$begingroup$

Let me try to guess what can have come into their mind.



First of all, as mentioned in the comments, these were found in order to mimick the properties of $(a,b) mapsto ab^{-1}$ in a group.




  1. To get a group from the single operation $/$, we need to recover the neutral element. Bit $e= aa^{-1}=a/a$ for any $a$. So to get $e$ we need to have $a/a=b/b$.


  2. If we call $e$ the common value of $b/b$, we need it to be a neutral element : $a/e = ae^{-1}= ae= a$. Hence $a/(b/b) = a$.


  3. We need $e$ to also be neutral on the left : we need to say how $e/(b/c)$ relates to $b/c$, but since there is an inversion in the process, we need to put $c/b$.


  4. At this point you have recovered the neutral element, and part of the inversion. Still you have no law concerning general $a,b,c$ that can account for associativity.



This is where 4 comes in. It relates a general $a,b,c$ and in terms of $ab^{-1}$ is : $(ac^{-1})(bc^{-1})^{-1} = ab^{-1}$. This means (thanks to 3. and to what it tells us about $(fg)^{-1}$ ) $(ac^{-1})(cb^{-1}) = ab^{-1}$. So this is a version of associativity in terms of $/$.



Now we have recovered the neutral element, the inversion, and associativity : we've got a group.



Note that analyzing where these laws come from tells you a great deal about how to prove that $(G, *)$ is a group, because you now have a clear route.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Max.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 10 at 12:23
















3












$begingroup$

Let me try to guess what can have come into their mind.



First of all, as mentioned in the comments, these were found in order to mimick the properties of $(a,b) mapsto ab^{-1}$ in a group.




  1. To get a group from the single operation $/$, we need to recover the neutral element. Bit $e= aa^{-1}=a/a$ for any $a$. So to get $e$ we need to have $a/a=b/b$.


  2. If we call $e$ the common value of $b/b$, we need it to be a neutral element : $a/e = ae^{-1}= ae= a$. Hence $a/(b/b) = a$.


  3. We need $e$ to also be neutral on the left : we need to say how $e/(b/c)$ relates to $b/c$, but since there is an inversion in the process, we need to put $c/b$.


  4. At this point you have recovered the neutral element, and part of the inversion. Still you have no law concerning general $a,b,c$ that can account for associativity.



This is where 4 comes in. It relates a general $a,b,c$ and in terms of $ab^{-1}$ is : $(ac^{-1})(bc^{-1})^{-1} = ab^{-1}$. This means (thanks to 3. and to what it tells us about $(fg)^{-1}$ ) $(ac^{-1})(cb^{-1}) = ab^{-1}$. So this is a version of associativity in terms of $/$.



Now we have recovered the neutral element, the inversion, and associativity : we've got a group.



Note that analyzing where these laws come from tells you a great deal about how to prove that $(G, *)$ is a group, because you now have a clear route.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Max.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 10 at 12:23














3












3








3





$begingroup$

Let me try to guess what can have come into their mind.



First of all, as mentioned in the comments, these were found in order to mimick the properties of $(a,b) mapsto ab^{-1}$ in a group.




  1. To get a group from the single operation $/$, we need to recover the neutral element. Bit $e= aa^{-1}=a/a$ for any $a$. So to get $e$ we need to have $a/a=b/b$.


  2. If we call $e$ the common value of $b/b$, we need it to be a neutral element : $a/e = ae^{-1}= ae= a$. Hence $a/(b/b) = a$.


  3. We need $e$ to also be neutral on the left : we need to say how $e/(b/c)$ relates to $b/c$, but since there is an inversion in the process, we need to put $c/b$.


  4. At this point you have recovered the neutral element, and part of the inversion. Still you have no law concerning general $a,b,c$ that can account for associativity.



This is where 4 comes in. It relates a general $a,b,c$ and in terms of $ab^{-1}$ is : $(ac^{-1})(bc^{-1})^{-1} = ab^{-1}$. This means (thanks to 3. and to what it tells us about $(fg)^{-1}$ ) $(ac^{-1})(cb^{-1}) = ab^{-1}$. So this is a version of associativity in terms of $/$.



Now we have recovered the neutral element, the inversion, and associativity : we've got a group.



Note that analyzing where these laws come from tells you a great deal about how to prove that $(G, *)$ is a group, because you now have a clear route.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Let me try to guess what can have come into their mind.



First of all, as mentioned in the comments, these were found in order to mimick the properties of $(a,b) mapsto ab^{-1}$ in a group.




  1. To get a group from the single operation $/$, we need to recover the neutral element. Bit $e= aa^{-1}=a/a$ for any $a$. So to get $e$ we need to have $a/a=b/b$.


  2. If we call $e$ the common value of $b/b$, we need it to be a neutral element : $a/e = ae^{-1}= ae= a$. Hence $a/(b/b) = a$.


  3. We need $e$ to also be neutral on the left : we need to say how $e/(b/c)$ relates to $b/c$, but since there is an inversion in the process, we need to put $c/b$.


  4. At this point you have recovered the neutral element, and part of the inversion. Still you have no law concerning general $a,b,c$ that can account for associativity.



This is where 4 comes in. It relates a general $a,b,c$ and in terms of $ab^{-1}$ is : $(ac^{-1})(bc^{-1})^{-1} = ab^{-1}$. This means (thanks to 3. and to what it tells us about $(fg)^{-1}$ ) $(ac^{-1})(cb^{-1}) = ab^{-1}$. So this is a version of associativity in terms of $/$.



Now we have recovered the neutral element, the inversion, and associativity : we've got a group.



Note that analyzing where these laws come from tells you a great deal about how to prove that $(G, *)$ is a group, because you now have a clear route.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 9 at 11:16









MaxMax

16.2k11144




16.2k11144












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Max.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 10 at 12:23


















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Max.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 10 at 12:23
















$begingroup$
Thank you very much, Max.
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 10 at 12:23




$begingroup$
Thank you very much, Max.
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 10 at 12:23











3












$begingroup$

These are common properties of fractions.





  1. $1 = 1$,


  2. $a/1 = a$,


  3. $1/(b/c) = c/b$, if $b neq 0, c neq 0$, and


  4. $frac{a/c}{b/c} = a/b$, if $b neq 0, c neq 0$.


This is not all the properties of fractions of integers. So this describes an algebraic system with division of nonzero quantities only guaranteed to have the listed properties. If you think of another property of fractions that isn't a consequence of the above, then the algebraic system described above need not exhibit that property.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Eric Towers.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 10 at 12:22
















3












$begingroup$

These are common properties of fractions.





  1. $1 = 1$,


  2. $a/1 = a$,


  3. $1/(b/c) = c/b$, if $b neq 0, c neq 0$, and


  4. $frac{a/c}{b/c} = a/b$, if $b neq 0, c neq 0$.


This is not all the properties of fractions of integers. So this describes an algebraic system with division of nonzero quantities only guaranteed to have the listed properties. If you think of another property of fractions that isn't a consequence of the above, then the algebraic system described above need not exhibit that property.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Eric Towers.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 10 at 12:22














3












3








3





$begingroup$

These are common properties of fractions.





  1. $1 = 1$,


  2. $a/1 = a$,


  3. $1/(b/c) = c/b$, if $b neq 0, c neq 0$, and


  4. $frac{a/c}{b/c} = a/b$, if $b neq 0, c neq 0$.


This is not all the properties of fractions of integers. So this describes an algebraic system with division of nonzero quantities only guaranteed to have the listed properties. If you think of another property of fractions that isn't a consequence of the above, then the algebraic system described above need not exhibit that property.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



These are common properties of fractions.





  1. $1 = 1$,


  2. $a/1 = a$,


  3. $1/(b/c) = c/b$, if $b neq 0, c neq 0$, and


  4. $frac{a/c}{b/c} = a/b$, if $b neq 0, c neq 0$.


This is not all the properties of fractions of integers. So this describes an algebraic system with division of nonzero quantities only guaranteed to have the listed properties. If you think of another property of fractions that isn't a consequence of the above, then the algebraic system described above need not exhibit that property.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jan 9 at 7:42









Eric TowersEric Towers

33.9k22371




33.9k22371












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Eric Towers.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 10 at 12:22


















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, Eric Towers.
    $endgroup$
    – tchappy ha
    Jan 10 at 12:22
















$begingroup$
Thank you very much, Eric Towers.
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 10 at 12:22




$begingroup$
Thank you very much, Eric Towers.
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 10 at 12:22


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3067177%2fhow-did-kazuo-matsuzaka-come-to-think-of-this-group-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

Aardman Animations

Are they similar matrix