1

Foreword:

I have read R.H. Bruck's A Survey of binary systems, where the notion of halfoperation is given. A halfoperation $\ast$ differs from a (binary) operation since $a\ast b$ may not be defined for all ordered pairs $(a,b)$. For example, from the Cayley table

$$\begin{array}{c|cc}\ast & 0 & 1\\ \hline 0 & 0 & 1\\1 & & 0\end{array}$$

we deduce that $0\ast 1=1$ while $1\ast 0$ is not defined ($(0,1)$ belongs to the range of the halfoperation, $(1,0)$ does not).

Let us now consider two well known operations over $\mathbb{R}^3$:

  1. vector product: ${\mathbb{R}^3\times\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}^3}\qquad{(a,b)\mapsto a\wedge b}$,
  2. scalar product: ${\mathbb{R}^3\times\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}}\qquad{(a,b)\mapsto a\cdot b}$.

In italian (my native language) we call both of them binary operation:

  1. operazione binaria interna one like vector product (interna: "inner" or "internal"),
  2. operazione binaria esterna one like scalar product (esterna: "outer" or "external").

Question:

Does such distinction exist in english? I found no traces of it in literature and, reading papers, forums and SE, I have experienced that this matter may sometimes give raise to ambiguities or misunderstanding.

How should we properly call an operation like subtraction $-$ over $\mathbb{N}$, since $a-b$ only belongs to $\mathbb{N}$ if $a\ge b$? Halfoperation over $\mathbb{N}$?

How should we properly call an operation like scalar product $\cdot$ over $\mathbb{R}^3$, since $a\cdot b$ exists for all $(a,b)\in\mathbb{R}^3\times\mathbb{R}^3$ but never belongs to $\mathbb{R}^3$? Is this not a binary operation while vector product is?

And, above all:

In the end the word binary, alone, means that the operation is a function of two variables (its arity is $2$), but does not deal with closure...

...Right?

MattAllegro
  • 3,316
  • 1
    Related. Regarding the last section, see the quote in this answer. – Git Gud May 15 '14 at 21:17
  • @Git Gud: I am reading...again and again, I'll ask you further details. I want to get proper understanding of the vocabulary choices. What about scalar product? "external binary"? Oh c'mon we're not only interested in internal binary, do we? Glad "Related" and not "duplicate" ;) – MattAllegro May 15 '14 at 22:08
  • 1
    I'm not the right person to discuss this, for all I care one could use words such as senbonzakura or kageyoshi to mean natural number and plane respectively. All I care about is that the things are properly defined. – Git Gud May 15 '14 at 22:19
  • @Git Gud: Manga & Math. Stright Edge. Good nite. – MattAllegro May 15 '14 at 22:21
  • 1
    A "function" which do not always return a value, such that $f(x)$ is undefined, sometimes, is called a "partial function", so maybe "partila binary operation" will do? – kjetil b halvorsen Aug 02 '15 at 22:21
  • 1
    There was a time when the term " function" was defined in a broader sense. In old books, the requirement was only that no $x$ in A should be associated with more than one $y$ in B. So the case where an $x$ in the domain has no image did not prevent the relation to be a function. –  Apr 08 '20 at 09:32
  • 1
    French mathematicians still say " internal law of composition" and " external law of composition" . I may be wrong, but I think that in the past, this terminology was used in the english speaking mathematical literature ( maybe under the influence of Bourbaki). But I think that nowadays, the terminology is outdated. –  Apr 08 '20 at 09:34

0 Answers0