I The adjective "finite" applied to algebraic structures

AI Thread Summary
The term "finite" in algebraic structures typically refers to a set with a finite number of elements, but it can also denote finitely generated algebras, which can be misleading. The distinction between "finite" and "finitely generated" is crucial, as the former implies a finite set while the latter refers to a finite set of generators. Discussions around finite lattices and finite algebras raise questions about whether these terms imply finite sets or finite dimensions. The conversation highlights the need for clarity in definitions, particularly in the context of quotient algebras and lattice orders. Overall, the use of "finite" can vary significantly depending on the algebraic context.
Stephen Tashi
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Messages
7,864
Reaction score
1,602
TL;DR Summary
Are there many examples in algebra where the adjective "finite" (by itself) means "finitely generated" or "finite dimensional" or finite in some other sense than being a finite set?
The adjective "finite" applied to many algebraic structures (e.g. groups, fields) indicates a set with a finite number of elements. However, (as I understand it) "finite algebra" refers to a finitely generated algebra. Are there other examples where "finite" means finite in some respect but not necessarily finite as a set?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Stephen Tashi said:
Summary:: Are there many examples in algebra where the adjective "finite" (by itself) means "finitely generated" or "finite dimensional" or finite in some other sense than being a finite set?

The adjective "finite" applied to many algebraic structures (e.g. groups, fields) indicates a set with a finite number of elements. However, (as I understand it) "finite algebra" refers to a finitely generated algebra. Are there other examples where "finite" means finite in some respect but not necessarily finite as a set?
I wouldn't call a finitely generated algebra just finite. This is misleading, as it could mean that the set of elements of the algebra is finite. There is a reason why it is called finitely generated, in which case the set of generators is finite. So in any case there is some finite set if we use this adjective, be it generators, basis elements, or the entire set.

Your question doesn't make much sense to me.
 
fresh_42 said:
Your question doesn't make much sense to me.

Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_lattice_representation_problem

The finite lattice representation problem asks whether the same is true for finite lattices and finite algebras.
Is a "finite algebra" a finite set?
 
I assume it should better be "finite dimensional" in both cases, lattice and algebra. But since I have never heard, nor do I have an imagination of a finite lattice, it could as well be finite sets. In that case it will inevitably imply a finite field.

The quotation 'Intervals in subgroup lattices of finite groups.' indicates finite sets. We have two different words, Gitter = lattice and Verband = lattice order. So it seems we are talking about lattice orders here. The question is thus whether such a (finite) lattice (order) can be written as a quotient algebra. Now as a quotient it could mean finite algebras or finite dimensional algebras, because the quotient is a set of equivalence classes and the word finite alone does not indicate what is canceled out. I assume, however, that actually finite algebras (finite set of elements) are meant, since otherwise we would say finite dimensional or finite generated. I would search for and look into the original paper in this case to be clear.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top