Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

How associativity condition may be formulated for a function taking an arbitrary ordinal number of arguments?

For a binary operation $\ast$ it is $(a\ast b)\ast c = a\ast (b\ast c)$, but I want an infinite formula, whose special case is the condition of associativity for a binary operation.

share|cite|improve this question
Let's look at the next case: four args. What would the rules be? The possibilities are abcd = a*(b*(cd)) = a*((bc)*d) = (ab)*(cd) = (a*(bc)*d) = ... Seems to me that the only reasonable way which avoids enumerating all possible parenthesizations (not a word, but ...) would be a recursive one. – marty cohen Mar 18 '12 at 19:21
There isn't really a notion of associativity when starting with a ternary operator, so an operator taking infinitely many variables probably doesn't have a real notion of associativity. – Thomas Andrews Mar 18 '12 at 19:36
@Thomas: Writing $[abc]$ for the result of applying the operation to the ordered triple $\langle a,b,c\rangle$, the obvious notion of associativity is that $[ab[cde]]=[a[bcd]e]=[[abc]de]$ for all $a,b,c,d,e$. A much less obvious generalization of associativity is $[[abc]de]=[a[bde][cde]]$, obtained by thinking of each element $a$ as a two-place function (where the ordinary $(ab)c=a(bc)$ corresponds to thinking of each element as a one-place function). – Brian M. Scott Mar 18 '12 at 22:57
See a related question at MathOverflow:… – porton Mar 20 '12 at 22:37
@BrianM.Scott I think you've provided useful information, but this doesn't contradict what Thomas Andrews says. Your generalization of the associativity, I agree, generalizes our intuitive concept of associativity to a non-binary operation. Associativity (once given a notational system) gets defined as an equality which involves a binary operation, which is not just an intuition. Hence you may claim to have a concept of ternary associativity, but that is not the concept of associativity, or redundantly, binary associativity. – Doug Spoonwood Apr 11 '12 at 23:33

For operations of arbitrary arity you should look at Monads. They conceptualize the notion of associativity to a rather abstract and general context.

For some ideas concerning infinite products see the note "Some remarks on infinite products" by Jim Coykendal, online

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.