Suppose $\Sigma$ is a signature in the sense of universal algebra and $\Sigma' \subseteq \Sigma$ a sub-signature. Every $\Sigma$-algebra is also a $\Sigma'$-algebra in a forgetful way. Suppose $A$ is a $\Sigma$-algebra and $B \subseteq A$ is a $\Sigma'$-subalgebra of $A$ viewed as a $\Sigma'$-algebra. Is there an accepted phrase which describes the relationship of $B$ to $A$? For example, we might say that $B$ is a $\Sigma'$-restriction of $A$, or something like that? It seems wrong to use the word "subalgebra" in this context.

Here is an example: the semiring of natural numbers $\mathbb{N}$ is contained in the ring of real numbers $\mathbb{R}$. This makes $\mathbb{N}$ a what of $\mathbb{R}$? A subsemiring? What is the general phrase? A $\Sigma'$-subalgebra? I would prefer a word which does not refer to the signature explicitly.

The concrete example which I need this for is when $A$ is the $\Sigma$-algebra freely generated by a set of generators $X$ and $B$ is the free $\Sigma'$-aglebr freely generated by the same set of generators $X$.

  • $\begingroup$ In semigroup theory we routinely talk about subsemigroups of monoids. $\endgroup$ – Benjamin Steinberg May 3 '12 at 23:55
  • $\begingroup$ An earlier comment of mine which I deleted said that you might call it a subclone. That would be technically incorrect, but you might find an appropriate homomorphism from an abstract clone onto each of A and B. Gerhard "Hope It's Right This Time" Paseman, 2012.05.04 $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman May 4 '12 at 22:07

If the domain of $B$ is the same as $A$, but you only forget the interpretation of the extra language elements, then $B$ is called a reduct of $A$ to signature $\Sigma'$. But you don't merely have a reduct, since you are taking a substructure in the smaller language. Thus, what you have is that $B$ is a substructure of the reduct of $A$ to $\Sigma'$. Having needed this concept in a recent article, I used the term reduct substructure in exactly this situation, but I haven't seen this terminology elsewhere and I don't think there is an established terminology.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Hoe about "subreduct"? $\endgroup$ – Andrej Bauer May 3 '12 at 22:29
  • $\begingroup$ Seems fine to me! (Unless the model theorists show up with an established terminology...) $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins May 3 '12 at 22:33
  • $\begingroup$ I think subreduct has been coopted. Do a literature search before using. Check Chang and Keisler, McKenzie McNulty and Taylor, Burris and Sankappanavar, and Graetzer to start. Gerhard "Away From His Personal Library" Paseman, 2012.05.03 $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman May 4 '12 at 4:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The "subreduct" term is very common to denote what you are interested. See for instance books.google.es/books?id=T80Nwh7MGa0C&pg=PA205 $\endgroup$ – boumol May 4 '12 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ Excellent, subreduct it is then. I will accept Joel's answer I suppose. We wouldn't want his reputation to veer off the exponential curve. $\endgroup$ – Andrej Bauer May 4 '12 at 20:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.