1
$\begingroup$

This post is a continuation of Weirdos but algebraic.

Logically, the quoted post could follow the present one rather than precede it.

Question Does there exist an indecomposable weirdo which is neither an Abelian group nor is based on a module over certain left and right rings, with a distinguished invertible element for each of these rings?

These weirdos were described in my previous post. Also, indecomposable means indecomposable into a direct (Cartesian) product of two nontrivial weirdos.

=====================================

Examples of indecomposable weirdos:

  • every weirdo such that the number of its elements is a prime number is indecomposable;

  • every cyclic Abelian group of finite order $\ p^n,\ $ where $\ p\ $ is a prime, is indecomposable;

  • the additive Abelian group $\ \Bbb Z\ $ is indecomposable;

  • the set of ring $\ X:=\Bbb Z[\frac 12]\ $ is an indecomposable weirdo with respect to:

$$ \forall_{x\ y\in X}\quad \sigma(x\ y)\ :=\ \frac{x+y}2. $$

==============================================

EDIT

Please. check my "EDIT" from my previous post.

==============================================

==============================================

PS.   Within a day or two, I will leave MO, this time for good.

MO had great potential, I saw it for all these years. It was not fulfilled at all (just the opposite). So be it.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What about the free one generated weirdo? Gerhard "It's Weird Enough For Me" Paseman, 2020.05.19. $\endgroup$ Commented May 20, 2020 at 4:43
  • $\begingroup$ A good question! $\endgroup$
    – Wlod AA
    Commented May 20, 2020 at 4:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually an answer to this question was suggested in my previous answer: take a cancelative magma with the quasimedial property, in which the right multiplications are not all surjective, and modify arbitrary $\lambda$ outside the image of $(x,y)\mapsto (xy,y)$ (and similarly $\mu$ outside the image of $(x,y)\mapsto (x,xy)$). The answer here just plays this game in the case of the additive law on $\mathbf{N}$. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented May 20, 2020 at 6:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WlodAA It's even simpler. In both examples you mention (abelian, bimodules+ pair of invertible), the left and right multiplications are bijective (which is automatic for finite E-structures). So any indecomposable W-structure that for which it's not true yields an example. So even the monoid $\mathbf{N}$ works itself. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented May 20, 2020 at 8:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, if $X$ is a cancelative magma, and $u,v$ are permutations of $X$, the new magma with law $(x,y)\mapsto u(x)v(y)$ is cancelative as well, defining an E-structure. If $X$ is commutative and $u$ is a single permutation, then $(x,y)\mapsto u(x)u(y)$ defines a W-structure. Even if $X$ is associative, it's not associative in general. So the most obvious examples of W-structures are those for which there is a commutative semigroup $X$ and a permutation $u$ of $X$ such that the law is given by $(x,y)\mapsto u(x)u(y)$. This covers all the given examples. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented May 20, 2020 at 8:50

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Not sure if the following example counts as being different from those listed in the problem, but consider the weirdo with universe $\mathbb N = \{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ and

$\sigma(x,y)=x+y$
$\lambda(x,y)=\rho(y,x) = x\ominus y$,
where $x\ominus y = x-y$ if $x\geq y$ while $x\ominus y = 0$ if $x<y$.

Comments.

Everybody knows that a quasigroup is a structure $\langle Q; *, /,\backslash \rangle$ satisfying the laws

(Axioms 1) $(x* y)/y = x$, $x\backslash(x* y) = y$, and
(Axioms 2) $(x/y)* y = x$, $x*(x\backslash y) = y$.

These say that the operation table of $x* y$ is a Latin square on $Q$, or equivalently that the maps $x\mapsto a* x$ and $x\mapsto x* b$ are permutations of $Q$ with inverses $x\mapsto a\backslash x$ and $x\mapsto x/b$.

If we take $\sigma(x,y)=x* y$, $\lambda(x,y) = x/y$, and $\rho(x,y)=x\backslash y$ and only impose (Axioms 1), then we get what the OP calls an ``eccentric''. (Axioms 1) guarantee that multiplication is is cancellative in each variable, but do not seem to force multiplication to be a permutation in each variable.


The medial law for multiplication is $(x* y)* (u* v) = (x* u)* (y* v)$.

The OP's weirdos are medial groupoids satisfying (Axioms 1). Weirdos satisfying (Axioms 2) are medial quasigroups.

The following theorem from the 1940's is relevant to the question here:

Theorem. (Bruck (1944), Murdoch (1941), Toyoda (1941))

The following are equivalent for a quasigroup $Q$.

(1) $Q$ satisfies the medial law for multiplication.
(2) There is an abelian group structure on $Q$ and two commuting abelian group automorphisms $\alpha, \beta: Q\to Q$ such that $x* y = \alpha(x)+\beta(y) + c$ for some $c\in Q$.

Thus, one does get an affine representation for weirdos satisfying (Axioms 2).


If we delete (Axioms 2) we are only guaranteed that multiplication is cancellative. But the following is a consequence of Corollary 1.2 of my paper

A quasi-affine representation.
Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 5 (1995), 673--702.

Consequence. If $\langle Q; * \rangle$ is a medial, cancellative groupoid, then $Q$ has a quasi-affine representation iff $Q$ is abelian in the sense of commutator theory.

Thus abelian weirdos will have quasi-affine representations.

(Saying that $Q$ has a quasi-affine representation means that there is an $R$-module $M$ containing $Q$ as a subset and the multiplication is representable as $x*y = \alpha(x)+\beta(y) + c$ for some not-necessarily-invertible ring elements $\alpha, \beta\in R$ and some $c\in Q$. You will see from the first example above, involving $\mathbb N$, why we need to talk about subsets of modules rather than full modules.)

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose it is not known whether there are nonabelian weirdos? $\endgroup$ Commented May 20, 2020 at 8:01
  • $\begingroup$ @მამუკა ჯიბლაძე, In my earlier post I gave an example, in full detail, of a non-abelian weirdo, the one which lives in $\ \Bbb Z[\frac 16].$ $\endgroup$
    – Wlod AA
    Commented May 20, 2020 at 8:31
  • $\begingroup$ @WlodAA Sorry I should clarify that I mean abelian in the sense of commutator theory, as in this answer. Your example should be such, since it is affine (with $\alpha=2/3$, $\beta=1/3$, $c=0$), no? $\endgroup$ Commented May 20, 2020 at 8:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Abelian (in the sense of commutator theory) is not the same as commutative. An algebra $A$ is abelian in the sense of commutator theory if the diagonal of $A\times A$ is a congruence class. $\endgroup$ Commented May 20, 2020 at 8:44
  • $\begingroup$ Keith, thank you for your answer. Also my thanks to @YCor. This is my last OM action (sorry that I don't have the energy to continue or even to complete the present threads. There are also at least equally interesting questions about field-like structures, both algebraic and topological). Good luck. $\endgroup$
    – Wlod AA
    Commented May 21, 2020 at 1:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .