Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: red herring principle and non-associative algebras

Bottom of Page

1 to 7 of 7

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2012
    • (edited Dec 11th 2012)

    Someone anonymous has deleted a paragraph at red herring principle on non-associative algebra. This seems a bit strange. I am no expert on those beasties but although non-associative algebra includes the study of Lie algebras etc., amongst them are the modules and it seems to me that a module (with trivial multiplication) considered as a Lie algebra is an associative non-associative algebra! The query by Toby further down the entry is relevant but if we assume ‘non-unital’ as well (and that is sometimes done) there is no problem.

    There was no post to the Forum. The IP is 2.40.78.132. which is in Trieste it seems.

    Should the paragraph be reinstated?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2012
    • (edited Dec 11th 2012)

    Thanks for watching out for this!

    I suppose one could have different opinions on whether “Lie algebra” is an “algebra as used in linear algebra”, and maybe that paragraoph could be tweaked a bit. But what worries me here is that people remove material without any announcement here. We’d have enough signposts on the HomePagethat advice not to do that, I would think. What else could we do?

    I have to run now. But if somebody finds the time to re-instantiate that paragraph and maybe addd a bit re Lie algebras etc., that would be good.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2012

    Your worry mirrors mine, hence my post here.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2012

    I have rolled it back.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2012

    I rewrote that paragraph a bit too.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2012

    I was thinking of adding a point

    • Complete semi-simplicial sets, now just called simplicial sets, where at one point called just semi-simplicial sets, though that term originally referred to a weaker concept. Now when people refer to semi-simplicial sets, they may need to specify they mean the original version, not the temporary definition seen in older papers.

    but I’m not certain that it is an instance of the red-herring principle, but also not sure it falls under the ’non-examples’ section. Any thoughts?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2012

    I wouldn’t classify that as either.

1 to 7 of 7

  1.