0
$\begingroup$

[cross posted from mse]

the class of all finite groups is not closed under produtcs - example: the product over all finite cyclic groups - thus it is not a variety of algebras, ie, it's not axiomatizable by universal sentences.

in fact more is true: it's not axiomatizable at all, by a consequence of the compactness theorem for first order theories, namely, that a theory having models of arbitrarily large finite size - again, take the cyclic groups - must have an infinite model.

proofs of theorems pertaining to finite but not to arbitrary groups have more of an 'arithmetical flavor' than a 'general nonsensical' one, and it's not hard to envision the subject being developed inside first-order number theory.

so what is it that makes the subject of finite groups 'algebraic'? why does it appear on, say, syllabi on undergrad and graduate algebra?

$\endgroup$
8
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I suspect you're bowing down to a false god when you treat that kind of definition of "algebra" as if it were something known to be somehow correct. $\endgroup$ Apr 12 at 21:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh my--when would an undergraduate, or even graduate student, be allowed to read about the classification of finite simple groups? $\endgroup$
    – user52817
    Apr 12 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ not 'correct', of course [definitions don't have truth values], but it seems reasonable to me; it just seems finite group theory is fundamentally 'arithmetical' in character $\endgroup$
    – ac15
    Apr 12 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ @user52817 ideally after understanding 'simplicity' in terms of 'normal subobjects', and these in terms of kernels [either universal-algebraically/model-theoretically or categorially] + understanding simple groups appear naturally in considering composition series $\endgroup$
    – ac15
    Apr 12 at 21:39
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @ac15 - From where I sit, the entire purpose of general nonsense is that it takes complicated problems, peels away the obfuscation, and exposes their combinatorial kernel. General nonsense that doesn't have a combinatorial kernel feels vacuous. Then again, I'm an algebraic combinatorialist. $\endgroup$ Apr 13 at 0:46
6
$\begingroup$

Typically, students learn about finite groups long before they think of "variety of algebras" or "compactness theorem". I suppose you also want to exclude fields from "algebra"?

I would say: topics for an algebra syllabus are chosen according to how useful they are; not according to how they fit into some general framework.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ in this sense fields are not 'algebraic' either - witnessed by non closure under products, division being only a partial function, etc - even if axiomatizable; but i understand a field is really studied via its modules/spaces and commutative algebras, these being (generally non finitely axiomatizable) varieties, so there's no 'problem' in this case; more broadly, do you mean it's more a question of historical and pedagogical character than of a conceptual one? $\endgroup$
    – ac15
    Apr 12 at 21:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Correct. Mathematics students are much more likely to use finite groups in their future studies, than they are to use varieties of algebras. $\endgroup$ Apr 12 at 21:16

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.