Talk:Group Induces B-Algebra

Thanks prime.mover. This is very good indeed.

If I'm not mistaken an Abelian Group induces a 0-commutative $B$-Algebra too.

This is very interesting to me. In Quasigroups we now have a way to shift from any Group to a $B$-Algebra.

There are a few more identities I have on the burner to do with both $B$-Algebras and Quasigroups that I will try to put on here as soon as possible.

By the way, thanks for correcting my LaTeX. Is it imperative that I do:

"\left({x \circ y}\right) \circ z" 

instead of

"(x \circ y) \circ z"

Is it for browsers or something? Its very hard to see what I'm doing. I'm kind of wishing I established juxtaposition notation from the start instead.

--Jshflynn 12:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"\left({x \circ y}\right) \circ z" is house style. The idea is that if the left/right technique is adhered to rigorously, then (a) mismatches of parentheses can be caught and rectified before the page goes live, (b) when used around more complex statements, the parentheses (of whichever kind) are automatically sized appropriately, without needing to use the "Big" commands etc.

Much of the details of how the LaTeX is coded up is specific to the house style, which ensures a completely uniform look-and-feel. Check the help pages for some of the broader detail.

When discussing general algebraic structures, it is better not to use juxtaposition notation, because then the presence and positioning of the operator is not obvious. In the depths of group theory and ring theory, where it is usually obvious what the operator is, the juxtaposition notation can be argued as being justified, but I have found that this can obscure the details of what is being communicated. --prime mover 13:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)