Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2017 July 30

Mathematics desk
< July 29 << Jun | July | Aug >> Current desk >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


July 30

edit

Commutative but non-associative binary operations

edit

The notion of a family tree and mixed ethnicity has motivated defining the following operation on a certain rational free vector space. The set over which we define the free vector space over (with respect to rational numbers) is a set of people considered to be ethnically pure, and for mathematical reasons we shall ignore sex compatability. Let us restrict our attention to conical combinations. Then I can define the "mating" operation sending   to  ; denote this operation by  . This operation is clearly commutative, but not associative. For example, we can let the set be   where C, F, E, and P are ethnically "pure" Chinese, French, English, and Pakistani. In common parlance, we would say   is "half Chinese, half French", and then   is "half English, quarter Chinese, and quarter French".

What is a general name for an operation of this sort? Mathematically, I have just defined a particular magma, so I guess my question is, is there anything special about the notion of a "commutative magma"?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we do have a notion of commutative magma.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Geometrically interpreted, this is the midpoint operation on points. Not sure how knowing it's a commutative magma helps though; it's nice to have a name but I don't think there are any big structure theorems or anything. --RDBury (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RDBury: The magma appears to be something called "Jordan" as well, but I don't see how that helps much either. Every element is idempotent, so we do have power associativity. At the same time, though, we do not have alternativity, since  .--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]