this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
589 points (98.2% liked)

Comic Strips

16662 readers
2147 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kogasa@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Distributivity is a requirement for non associative algebras. So whatever structure is left is not one of those

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What the fuck are you talking about? That's incorrect as a matter of simple fact.

Associativity is a property possessed by a single operation, whereas distribution is a property possessed by pairs of operations. Non-associative algebras aren't even generally ones that posses multiple operations, so how the hell do you think one implies the other?

Edit: actually, while we're on it, your first comment was nonsense too; you don't know what an identity is and you think that there's no notion of inverses without an identity. While that's generally the case there are exceptions like in Latin Squares, which describe the Cayley Tables of finite algebras for which every element can be operated with some other element to produce any one target element. In this way we can formulate a notion of "division" without using an identity.

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Algebras have two operations by definition and the one thing they have in common is that the multiplication distributes over addition.

Yes, there is no notion of inverses without an identity, the definition of an inverse is in terms of an identity.

Stop posting.

Do you think a group isn't an algebra? What, by your definitions make an "Algebra" different from a "Ring"?