Timeline for Generalizing groups via the Hall-Witt identity
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2012 at 22:22 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | I just mean that there's no good reason to prefer this particular parenthesization over any of the others. One might prefer a parenthesization which computes the conjugations first (somehow), then the commutators (somehow), then the actual products, for example. | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 21:14 | comment | added | Rodrigo Vargas | Could you be more precise regarding this? Indeed, what is the right parenthesization should be understood as part of the question, so the reasons you have to believe just associating from the right may be wrong could actually evolve into a complete answer... | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 20:33 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | This seems problematic. It is far from clear that your parenthesization is the one that gives the "right" Hall-Witt identity. | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 20:30 | comment | added | Rodrigo Vargas | Marty, sorry for the delay in answering. I have edited the question with your commentary in mind. I think now it is much clearer. | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 20:27 | history | edited | Rodrigo Vargas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Further explanation of the questions and their motivation.
|
| Jun 9, 2012 at 22:31 | comment | added | Marty Isaacs | Asking if associativity is stronger than Hall-Witt amounts to asking if Hall-Witt impliee associativity. But what would that mean? To state Hall-Witt, you need commutators and conjugation. How would you define those in a nonassociative context? | |
| May 25, 2012 at 22:12 | history | asked | Rodrigo Vargas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |