|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
In articles like this, I understand why the category theory definition is nice, as it is so general, but I don't (personally) find it very useful. A definition in a universal algrebra book or paper would look more like this:
Let be any set, let be a algebra of type , and let be a function. we say that (or informally just ) is a free algebra (of type ) on the set of free generators if, for every algebra of type and function , there exists a unique homomorphism such that .
So I have a couple questions:
1) Is there a central WP place where the benifits of catagory theory type definitions of concepts are weighed, and from which I could judge when other perspectives are appropriate?
2) Assuming this definition is not horribly mangled, would it be appropriate to add a universal algebra type definition of the a free algebra such as this one to this article?
- 1) Probably best to as on WP:WPM.
- 2) If you can incorporate it clearly into what's already there, then, yes. However, I have no idea of what you mean by "of type ", and thus this would need to be expanded upon first. linas 17:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- By type of an algebra I meant the arity of the operations of the algebra, which is an important part of how the algebra is defined in a sort of Universal Algebra sense. I had hoped that after adding this question, someone would look at the definition I gave and give it some criticism (thereby helping me understand something I needed to know at the time - ; ) too late now) as well as clear up the question. I'll mention it over at the project page now. Thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)