Can a group act on the empty set?What's the idea of an action of a group?Group Actions of $S_n$ and $O(n)$If groups $G$ and $H$ act on $X$, does $Gtimes H$ act on $X$?Group action with two normal subgroups which induce same block systemWhat can we say about the sets X on which a group G acts freely and transitively?Functions between G-set and H-setGroup action onto power setUnderstanding the definition of the Group action.How group action works.Set of Double Cosets
What does a stand alone "T" index value do?
Aliens englobed the Solar System: will we notice?
Should QA ask requirements to developers?
Space in array system equations
Why would a jet engine that runs at temps excess of 2000°C burn when it crashes?
How strictly should I take "Candidates must be local"?
infinitive telling the purpose
How to create a hard link to an inode (ext4)?
How do you like my writing?
How do I locate a classical quotation?
Why the color red for the Republican Party
2×2×2 rubik's cube corner is twisted!
Can you reject a postdoc offer after the PI has paid a large sum for flights/accommodation for your visit?
Examples of a statistic that is not independent of sample's distribution?
How could our ancestors have domesticated a solitary predator?
How to pass a string to a command that expects a file?
Time travel short story where dinosaur doesn't taste like chicken
They call me Inspector Morse
Should I take out a loan for a friend to invest on my behalf?
Why does Captain Marvel assume the planet where she lands would recognize her credentials?
How do I deal with a powergamer in a game full of beginners in a school club?
Placing subfig vertically
Accountant/ lawyer will not return my call
Things to avoid when using voltage regulators?
Can a group act on the empty set?
What's the idea of an action of a group?Group Actions of $S_n$ and $O(n)$If groups $G$ and $H$ act on $X$, does $Gtimes H$ act on $X$?Group action with two normal subgroups which induce same block systemWhat can we say about the sets X on which a group G acts freely and transitively?Functions between G-set and H-setGroup action onto power setUnderstanding the definition of the Group action.How group action works.Set of Double Cosets
$begingroup$
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
edited 2 days ago
rabota
14.2k32782
asked 2 days ago
andrewandrew
999
$endgroup$
|
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
edited 2 days ago
rabota
14.2k32782
asked 2 days ago
andrewandrew
999
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Though it's kind of empty to have a group action on an empty set, isn't it? =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
edited 2 days ago
rabota
14.2k32782
asked 2 days ago
andrewandrew
999
$endgroup$
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 2 days ago
rabota
14.2k32782
asked 2 days ago
andrewandrew
999
edited 2 days ago
rabota
14.2k32782
asked 2 days ago
andrewandrew
999
edited 2 days ago
rabota
14.2k32782
edited 2 days ago
rabota
14.2k32782
edited 2 days ago
rabota
14.2k32782
14.2k32782
asked 2 days ago
andrewandrew
999
asked 2 days ago
andrewandrew
999
asked 2 days ago
andrewandrew
999
999
2
$begingroup$
Though it's kind of empty to have a group action on an empty set, isn't it? =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Though it's kind of empty to have a group action on an empty set, isn't it? =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Though it's kind of empty to have a group action on an empty set, isn't it? =)
$endgroup$
– user21820
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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.
answered 2 days ago
YankoYanko
7,7001830
$endgroup$
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.
answered 2 days ago
YankoYanko
7,7001830
$endgroup$
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.
answered 2 days ago
YankoYanko
7,7001830
$endgroup$
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.
answered 2 days ago
YankoYanko
7,7001830
$endgroup$
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 2 days ago
YankoYanko
7,7001830
answered 2 days ago
YankoYanko
7,7001830
answered 2 days ago
YankoYanko
7,7001830
answered 2 days ago
YankoYanko
7,7001830
7,7001830
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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago