Timeline for Why are so few operations with arity bigger than 2?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 26 at 11:08 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Stefan Kohl♦ | ||
| May 13, 2017 at 23:25 | history | edited | Gerry Myerson |
edited tags
|
|
| May 13, 2017 at 22:09 | answer | added | Joseph Van Name | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 13, 2017 at 4:26 | comment | added | Dan Piponi | In the programming language Haskell, all functions have arity 1. | |
| May 12, 2017 at 4:12 | answer | added | Joseph Van Name | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 11, 2014 at 3:47 | comment | added | Christian Remling | I thought the obvious answer to (2) is: humans crave for elegance and simplicity, so the simplest settings are the ones that come to mind first. | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 20:32 | answer | added | Ryan Budney | timeline score: 7 | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 19:54 | answer | added | Terry Tao | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 5, 2012 at 20:40 | answer | added | Marcos Cossarini | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 5, 2012 at 20:29 | answer | added | Vít Tuček | timeline score: -1 | |
| Feb 5, 2012 at 14:28 | answer | added | Niemi | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 10:38 | answer | added | Max | timeline score: 9 | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 10:28 | answer | added | Andrew Stacey | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 8:49 | comment | added | Maxime Bourrigan | I've always felt that our habits of 1. writing (and a written text is more or less 1-dimensional) and 2. using infix notations for the operations we like the most biased the game against big arity operations. To scientifically test this intuition of mine, one should rebuild a civilization where addition and multiplication are written in an other way (say, reverse Polish notation) and see what comes up. But who has the time? | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 7:14 | answer | added | Denis Serre | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 1:00 | answer | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | timeline score: 10 | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 0:33 | answer | added | none | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 23:25 | answer | added | Stefan Geschke | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 23:05 | answer | added | arsmath | timeline score: 20 | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 22:31 | answer | added | Qiaochu Yuan | timeline score: 15 | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 22:15 | answer | added | maxdev | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 22:14 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 22:02 | answer | added | David Harris | timeline score: 15 | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 22:00 | answer | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | timeline score: 22 | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 21:59 | answer | added | Michael Hardy | timeline score: 24 | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 21:50 | answer | added | Alicia Garcia-Raboso | timeline score: 23 | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 21:47 | comment | added | Harry Altman | There are planar ternary rings, which are a way of re-encoding (coordinatized) projective planes (in the combinatorial sense): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planar_ternary_ring ; however these don't form a variety, which given the tag I expect you might want. | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 21:39 | history | asked | Carlos Sáez | CC BY-SA 2.5 |