Content deleted Content added
→Multiple major issues: Reply |
→Permutation?: Reply |
||
Line 189:
:If you have idempotence but no commutativity to allow reduction, then I'd guess you have the most free regular language ''with no immediate repetitions'' over a given alphabet (of size ''N''). Which itself is isomorphic to the maximal, loop-free, digraph with ''N'' vertices (interpreted as a finite state machine over the alphabet)? Anyways, even if that's interesting, it doesn't strike me as particularly noteworthy or relevant to the article.
:I feel like the ability to generate permutations from a monoid is noteworthy though so I corrected the line. To distinguish from the free monoid, it explicitly says "[[partial permutation]]" now. And maybe it's a bit of hand-waving, but now it just describes the monoid as "non-commutative without repetition". Does that sound good? -- [[User:Zar2gar1|Zar2gar1]] ([[User talk:Zar2gar1|talk]]) 17:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Zar2gar1|Zar2gar1]] That constraint on List should suffice to give "permutations". I wouldn't even call them "partial", as in the other rows not explicitly alluding to the relation to the underlying set or basis (like saying "subsets" for sets). I guess a permutation here should have implied an arrangement, not a mapping.
::Coming back to this, I wonder whether permutations have well-defined associative join from the first place. How do I define [a] ++ [b] ++ [a]? I might be missing something. [[User:J824h|Junghyeon Park]] ([[User talk:J824h|talk]]) 14:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
== Rust example ==
|