34

As someone who has an undergraduate education in mathematics, but didn't take it any further, I have often wondered something.

Of course mathematicians like to generalize ideas. i.e. it is often better to define and write proofs for a wider scope of objects than for a specific type of object. A kind of "paradox" if you will - the more general your ideas, often the deeper the proofs (quoting a professor).

Anyway I used to often wonder about group theory especially the idea of it being a set with a list of axioms and a binary function $a\cdot b = c$. But has anybody done research on tertiary (or is that trinary/ternary) groups? As in, the same definition of a group, but with a $\cdot (a,b,c) = d$ function.

Is there such a discipline? Perhaps it reduces to standard group theory or triviality and is provably of no interest. But since many results in Finite Groups are very difficult, notably the classification of simple groups, has anybody studied a way to generalize a group in such a way that a classification theorem becomes simpler? As a trite example: Algebra was pretty tricky before the study of imaginary numbers. Or to be even more trite: the Riemann $\zeta$ function wasn't doing much before it was extended to the whole complex plane.

EDIT: Just to expand what I mean. In standard groups there is an operation $\cdot :G\times G\to G$ I am asking about the case with an operation $\cdot :G\times G\times G\to G$

JJG
  • 727
  • 7
  • 11
  • Could you elaborate on your definition? It reminds me of vectors: take $a,b,c\in\mathbb{R}$ and $(a,b,c)$ a vector with $a$ a scalar. Maybe $d$ comes from taking the magnitude? Are we trying to talk about a grouplike thing that operates on itself and 3-tuples of itself in a different way? – ttt Dec 28 '11 at 14:27
  • 4
    At least one person is thinking about it: http://web.mit.edu/kmill/www/papers/trinary_groups.pdf – Chris Taylor Dec 28 '11 at 14:33
  • 11
    Universal algebra studies structures with $k$-ary operations. – lhf Dec 28 '11 at 14:36
  • @Chris Taylor. Thanks for that. I'll have a look at it. It is COMMUTATIVE, which boils down to commutative binary groups, so I'm not sure it would be helpful in dealing with simple groups. – JJG Dec 28 '11 at 14:41
  • 4
    There's a mild generalisation of group with a ternary operation (and nothing else!): it is called a heap. – Zhen Lin Dec 28 '11 at 15:05
  • It may also be useful to read about operads: http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/operad http://www.ams.org/notices/200406/what-is.pdf – graveolensa Jan 01 '12 at 10:18
  • 1
  • Related: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/351369/, https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/979916/ – Watson Nov 16 '16 at 16:31

4 Answers4

42

One problem with the idea is that the most obvious generalization to ternary operations really adds nothing new:

Proposition: Let $f:G\times G\times G:\to G$, and for brevity write $[abc]$ for $f(a,b,c)$. Suppose that there is an identity element $1_G\in G$ such that $[a1_G1_G]=[1_Ga1_G]=[1_G1_Ga]$ for all $a\in G$. Suppose further that the operation is associative in the following sense: $$\big[[abc]de\big]=\big[a[bcd]e\big]=\big[ab[cde]\big]$$ for all $a,b,c,d,e\in G$. Then there is an associative binary operation $\otimes$ on $G$ such that $[abc]=a\otimes b\otimes c$ for all $a,b,c\in G$, and $1_G$ is the $\otimes$-identity.

The proof is easy. Define $\otimes:G\times G\to G$ by $a\otimes b=[ab1_G]$. Then

$$\begin{align*} (a\otimes b)\otimes c&=[(a\otimes b)c1_G]=\big[[ab1_G]c1_G\big]=\big[ab[1_Gc1_G]\big]=[abc]\\ &=\big[[abc]1_G1_G\big]=\big[a[bc1_G]1_G\big]=[a(b\otimes c)1_G]=a\otimes(b\otimes c)\;, \end{align*}$$

and $a\otimes 1_G=[a1_G1_G]=a=[1_Ga1_G]=1_G\otimes a$ for all $a,b,c\in G$. Note that this does not require any kind of generalized commutativity for the ternary operation.

I remember noticing this as an undergraduate in the late 60s. My roommate was looking at a less obvious generalization of the associative law. The generalization, as I recall, was $$\big[[abc]de\big]=\big[a[bde][cde]\big]\;.\tag{1}$$ The idea is that if $\otimes$ is a binary operation on a set $G$, one can think of each element $a\in G$ as defining a function $f_a:G\to G:x\mapsto a\otimes x$, and associativity of $\otimes$ is then the statement that $$\operatorname{Comp}(f_a;f_b)=f_{f_a(b)}\;,\tag{2}$$ where $\operatorname{Comp}$ is the composition operator. In the ternary setting think of $a\in G$ as defining a function $$f_a:G\times G\to G:\langle b,c\rangle\mapsto [abc]\;;$$ then $(1)$ becomes

$$\operatorname{Comp}(f_a;f_b,f_c)=f_{f_a(b,c)}\;,$$

generalizing $(2)$.

If I remember correctly, this approach produced more interesting structures, but I no longer remember the details.

Brian M. Scott
  • 616,228
  • That generalization looks like it's shading towards combinators (and combinatory logic); I wonder if there's a clean translation there. – Steven Stadnicki Jul 03 '15 at 05:30
  • Brian, do you have any references for the second approach? – Anton Fetisov Jul 04 '16 at 01:45
  • @Anton: I'm afraid not. That was about 50 years ago, and I don't know whether my roommate pursued the idea. It's possible that others have done something with it, but it's not my field at all, and I've no idea even where one would look. – Brian M. Scott Jul 04 '16 at 01:52
  • 1
    I guess it is worth mentioning that this answer is referred to in this MathOverflow post: Ternary associative multiplication. – Martin Sleziak Sep 10 '17 at 09:20
  • This is because asking for identity (and/or inverses) is an obviously wrong way to generalize, those are binary concepts. What they are needed for is solving 'linear' equations like $ax=b$. In the ternary case, one should similarly ask for solvability of $axb=c$ and the like. This leads to a non-trivial theory of triadic (and, more generally, polyadic) groups that have been studied since Kasner and Post, see e.g. Equations in polyadic groups by Khodabandeh-Shahryari and references therein. – Conifold Sep 09 '23 at 14:03
  • I just woke up in the night with the realisation that this https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4774420/whats-the-automorphism-group-of-ax-b-cdot2-nu-2x-a-b-in-bbb-z-2-times could be an example of a ternary group. I don't know if you can help add any morsel of clarity for me there? – it's a hire car baby Sep 25 '23 at 02:56
  • @it'sahirecarbaby: I’m afraid that that question is too far outside my areas of competence for me to contribute anything useful. – Brian M. Scott Sep 25 '23 at 05:29
  • ok thanks for looking @BrianM.Scott In a sense the specifics of the example are outside everyone's level of competence because it's primary research but really all that's going on there is conjucating the set of a group which is difficult for me but I have no doubt a lot easier for you. – it's a hire car baby Sep 25 '23 at 07:17
  • why wouldn't the identity rather be defined as $[ab1_G]=[a1_Gb]=[1_Gab]$? – Alex Bogatskiy Mar 29 '24 at 17:59
  • 1
    @level1807: That doesn’t actually define it: what element of $G$ is $[ab1_G]$? I see no reasonable way to define it in general, and certainly no way compatible with the name *identity element: what is it leaving unchanged? One could*, I suppose, experiment with defining an identity element to be an element $e$ such that $[aae]=[aea]=[eaa]=a$ for all $a\in G$, but that seems a less natural approach, and I did not look at it back then. – Brian M. Scott Mar 30 '24 at 03:20
4

As Brian pointed out, the idea of ternary groups isn't that interesting, since ternary operations with identity can be shown to reduce to successively applied binary operations.

But there are some ternary group-like structures you might find interesting, and that might satisfy some of the curiosity that led you to ask this question in the first place. Someone named Dave Barber has been studying ternary quasigroups and has generated Cayley tables for a lot of them, along with names to describe their unique properties.

In constructing a ternary quasigroup, starting from a set of just 4 elements yields 55,296 possible ternary operations to choose from. Starting with 5 elements gives you 2,781,803,520 possible ternary quasigroups, and 6 elements gives 994,393,803,303,936,000 possible ternary quasigroups. Of course some of these can be can be expressed in terms of boring old binary operations, but many of them cannot! That's pretty exciting to me.

0

May I suggest Ternary Mathematics Principles Truth Tables and Logical Operators 3 D Placement of Logical Elements Extensions of Boolean Algebra https://www.journalajrcos.com/index.php/AJRCOS/article/view/30166/56610

Ternary Mathematics and 3D Placement of Logical Elements Justification https://www.journalajrcos.com/index.php/AJRCOS/article/view/30257/56788

ZuLa
  • 1
0

I was also interested in this and found that n-ary groups (or grouds) are probably the nearest concept to what was asked, if not restricted to 3-ary groups.

An interesting result is that non-reducible groups have no identity elements (I suppose that means $n>2$ here):

"Groups with intrinsically n-ary operations do not have an identity element."

Wiesław A. Dudek and Kazimierz Głazek, Around the Hosszú-Gluskin theorem for n-ary groups, Discrete Mathematics 308 (2008), 486–4876.

dawid
  • 333