On January 31, 2020 3:39:46 PM PST, Norman Megill <[email protected]> wrote:
>I would like to hear other opinions on whether "magma" and "semigroup"
>should become part of the main set.mm body.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I suspect Norm is right
that these are a whole lot more obscure than groups and rings and fields and
the other usual suspects. On the other hand, I guess things are arranged so
that a proof about groups doesn't really need to know about magmas and
semigroups? (Sorry if that is naive, I haven't done much with extensible
structures myself). That might point us to a "harmless even if not strictly
necessary" stance.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/C2F19551-0710-4BA5-A433-3FECB52D90F0%40panix.com.
