0

I am studying Hungerford's book "Algebra". In the page 27 he defines the meaningful product as follows.

Given any sequence of elements of a semigroup $G, {a_{1},a_{2},\dots}$ define inductively a meaningful product (in this order) as follows. If $n=1$, then the only meaningful product is $a_{1}$. If $n>1$, then a meaningful product is defined to be any product of the form $(a_{1}\cdots a_{m})(a_{m+1}\cdots a_{n})$ where $m< n$ and $(a_{1}\cdots a_{m})$ and $(a_{m+1}\cdots a_{n})$ are meaningful products of $m$ and $n-m$ elements respectively.

He notes next the following:

To show that this definition is in the fact well defined requires a stronger version of Recursion Theorem 6.2 of the Introduction; see C.W. Burril: Foundations of Real Numbers.

I don't have access to this book, so I would like to know this version and see how to use it, or a reference if possible.

I've never seen this definition before. Is it really necessary to define a meaningful product in order to prove that Generalized Associative law holds on a semigroup?

Thanks for your kindly help.

flag
1 
I think the definition is a way of refactoring the proof of the result. With it, the issue that things are well defined get pushed to the definition or before, while otherwise they would have to be dealt with in proving the statement. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2012.02.06 – Gerhard Paseman Feb 7 2012 at 6:25

Your Answer

Get an OpenID
or

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.