Talk:Group
This discussion page is a place for you to post your views on the article, including assessment of the quality of its content, discussion of any further points raised by the article, and suggestions for improvement. If your comments are in/pertinent to an already started section, please post comments within that section. Otherwise, click on the + link above to open a new section.
Rate the definition article
In this section we discuss how this article matches the quality ratings for definition articles, as described in Groupprops:Definition article. Please add your comments in the relevant section.
Features that are better elsewhere or are desired here
Please enter below any features in articles available on other free online resources that you think Groupprops may benefit from adopting/copying. These other resources include:
- The Wikipedia article
- The Planetmath article
- The Mathworld article
- The Springer Online Reference
Definition part
Rationale for definition choices
I've focused on two broad definition styles, that are clearly equivalent to people with basic knowledge of groups. One definition, typically the one introduced in textbooks, defines a group as a set with binary operation, such that an identity element and inverses exist. The other definition starts with all three operations satisfying three conditions. The latter definition is more useful from a universal algebra perspective, i.e., when we want to view groups as a variety of algebras.
Is this a sufficiently elementary article?
Group is the most basic definition and the article seems to be a little too long and complicated. Can the definition and other details be followed easily or does it look intimidating? Vipul 23:43, 23 May 2007 (IDT)