Talk:Subgroup
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Subgroup article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
subgroup operation or product[edit]
If in the definition of group one speaks of a generic operation *, why is so that in the definition of subgroup (or rather in the explanations below the definition, at the first property of subgroups) this operation has become a product? Is it language misuse, or is it a requirement?
Put another way: If the set of real numbers R forms a group under the operation +, with identity 0 and inverse -a, is the set of integers Z a subgroup of R under the operation +?
If so: can we speak of operator + as a product? This would be very confusing, although I could admit it as a convenient shortcut. However, in Wikipedia, we may want to guide the unexpert reader a little better.
Joan Solà (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The giant Cayley tables[edit]
I'm sorry, but I feel that the giant Cayley tables need to be removed. Their inclusion makes what should be an easy task (classifying the subgroups of Z/8Z and S_4) look incredibly complicated. None of the commonly-used algebra textbooks, such as those by Artin, Dummit & Foote, Fraleigh, Lang, etc., explain subgroups by using giant tables like these. Ebony Jackson (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)