Can a group act on the empty set?
$begingroup$
There isn't much more to add to this question. Can we define an action between some group and the null set?
I would have thought that there being no elements to act on it trivially satisfies the requirements for something to be an action but I'm not sure.
group-theory group-actions
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
There isn't much more to add to this question. Can we define an action between some group and the null set?
I would have thought that there being no elements to act on it trivially satisfies the requirements for something to be an action but I'm not sure.
group-theory group-actions
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Though it's kind of empty to have a group action on an empty set, isn't it? =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
12 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
In particular, the symmetric group $S_0$, which has order $1$, acts naturally on the empty set. There is unique bijection between the empty set and itself.
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user21820 the interest of a mathematical formalism is to avoid such philosophical considerations. In the same spirit, there were mathematicians fighting against the existence of infinite sets in the late XIX...
$endgroup$
– YCor
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@YCor: Erm... I was just joking in my first comment, but I disagree with your comment, because anyone who claims they use ZFC as their foundational system necessarily has made some very weird philosophical assumptions whether or not they know it.
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@YCor: But that's only if you think "truth within set theory" is meaningful. To refrain from prolonging this thread with our off-topic discussion, do you want to come to the logic chat-room?
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
There isn't much more to add to this question. Can we define an action between some group and the null set?
I would have thought that there being no elements to act on it trivially satisfies the requirements for something to be an action but I'm not sure.
group-theory group-actions
$endgroup$
There isn't much more to add to this question. Can we define an action between some group and the null set?
I would have thought that there being no elements to act on it trivially satisfies the requirements for something to be an action but I'm not sure.
group-theory group-actions
group-theory group-actions
edited 13 hours ago
nbarto
14.2k32782
14.2k32782
asked 13 hours ago
andrewandrew
927
927
2
$begingroup$
Though it's kind of empty to have a group action on an empty set, isn't it? =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
12 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
In particular, the symmetric group $S_0$, which has order $1$, acts naturally on the empty set. There is unique bijection between the empty set and itself.
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user21820 the interest of a mathematical formalism is to avoid such philosophical considerations. In the same spirit, there were mathematicians fighting against the existence of infinite sets in the late XIX...
$endgroup$
– YCor
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@YCor: Erm... I was just joking in my first comment, but I disagree with your comment, because anyone who claims they use ZFC as their foundational system necessarily has made some very weird philosophical assumptions whether or not they know it.
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@YCor: But that's only if you think "truth within set theory" is meaningful. To refrain from prolonging this thread with our off-topic discussion, do you want to come to the logic chat-room?
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
2
$begingroup$
Though it's kind of empty to have a group action on an empty set, isn't it? =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
12 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
In particular, the symmetric group $S_0$, which has order $1$, acts naturally on the empty set. There is unique bijection between the empty set and itself.
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user21820 the interest of a mathematical formalism is to avoid such philosophical considerations. In the same spirit, there were mathematicians fighting against the existence of infinite sets in the late XIX...
$endgroup$
– YCor
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@YCor: Erm... I was just joking in my first comment, but I disagree with your comment, because anyone who claims they use ZFC as their foundational system necessarily has made some very weird philosophical assumptions whether or not they know it.
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@YCor: But that's only if you think "truth within set theory" is meaningful. To refrain from prolonging this thread with our off-topic discussion, do you want to come to the logic chat-room?
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Though it's kind of empty to have a group action on an empty set, isn't it? =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Though it's kind of empty to have a group action on an empty set, isn't it? =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
12 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
In particular, the symmetric group $S_0$, which has order $1$, acts naturally on the empty set. There is unique bijection between the empty set and itself.
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
In particular, the symmetric group $S_0$, which has order $1$, acts naturally on the empty set. There is unique bijection between the empty set and itself.
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user21820 the interest of a mathematical formalism is to avoid such philosophical considerations. In the same spirit, there were mathematicians fighting against the existence of infinite sets in the late XIX...
$endgroup$
– YCor
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user21820 the interest of a mathematical formalism is to avoid such philosophical considerations. In the same spirit, there were mathematicians fighting against the existence of infinite sets in the late XIX...
$endgroup$
– YCor
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@YCor: Erm... I was just joking in my first comment, but I disagree with your comment, because anyone who claims they use ZFC as their foundational system necessarily has made some very weird philosophical assumptions whether or not they know it.
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@YCor: Erm... I was just joking in my first comment, but I disagree with your comment, because anyone who claims they use ZFC as their foundational system necessarily has made some very weird philosophical assumptions whether or not they know it.
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@YCor: But that's only if you think "truth within set theory" is meaningful. To refrain from prolonging this thread with our off-topic discussion, do you want to come to the logic chat-room?
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@YCor: But that's only if you think "truth within set theory" is meaningful. To refrain from prolonging this thread with our off-topic discussion, do you want to come to the logic chat-room?
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
yes you can define the trivial action.
Note that the axioms for group action begins with "for all"
That is:
For all $xin emptyset$ we have that $e.x=x$.
For all $xinemptyset$ and all $g,hin G$ we have $(gh)x=g.(h.x)$
Both statements hold trivially.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3142231%2fcan-a-group-act-on-the-empty-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
yes you can define the trivial action.
Note that the axioms for group action begins with "for all"
That is:
For all $xin emptyset$ we have that $e.x=x$.
For all $xinemptyset$ and all $g,hin G$ we have $(gh)x=g.(h.x)$
Both statements hold trivially.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
yes you can define the trivial action.
Note that the axioms for group action begins with "for all"
That is:
For all $xin emptyset$ we have that $e.x=x$.
For all $xinemptyset$ and all $g,hin G$ we have $(gh)x=g.(h.x)$
Both statements hold trivially.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
yes you can define the trivial action.
Note that the axioms for group action begins with "for all"
That is:
For all $xin emptyset$ we have that $e.x=x$.
For all $xinemptyset$ and all $g,hin G$ we have $(gh)x=g.(h.x)$
Both statements hold trivially.
$endgroup$
yes you can define the trivial action.
Note that the axioms for group action begins with "for all"
That is:
For all $xin emptyset$ we have that $e.x=x$.
For all $xinemptyset$ and all $g,hin G$ we have $(gh)x=g.(h.x)$
Both statements hold trivially.
answered 13 hours ago
YankoYanko
7,6801830
7,6801830
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3142231%2fcan-a-group-act-on-the-empty-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Though it's kind of empty to have a group action on an empty set, isn't it? =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
12 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
In particular, the symmetric group $S_0$, which has order $1$, acts naturally on the empty set. There is unique bijection between the empty set and itself.
$endgroup$
– Derek Holt
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@user21820 the interest of a mathematical formalism is to avoid such philosophical considerations. In the same spirit, there were mathematicians fighting against the existence of infinite sets in the late XIX...
$endgroup$
– YCor
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@YCor: Erm... I was just joking in my first comment, but I disagree with your comment, because anyone who claims they use ZFC as their foundational system necessarily has made some very weird philosophical assumptions whether or not they know it.
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@YCor: But that's only if you think "truth within set theory" is meaningful. To refrain from prolonging this thread with our off-topic discussion, do you want to come to the logic chat-room?
$endgroup$
– user21820
10 hours ago