0
$\begingroup$

The set of natural numbers $\mathbb{N}$ is not closed under division
The set of natural numbers $\mathbb{Z}$ is not closed under division

$\mathbb{N}$ $\subset$ $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}$ is not closed under division by extension $\mathbb{N}$ is also not closed under division. In other words division is only partially defined on $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{Z}$

If division is partially defined can we say that we have a partial magma or partial groupoid ?

  1. If $\mathbb{Z}$ has negative numbers is correct to say that division is partially defined also for Inverses for Integer Addition while this is not true for $\mathbb{N}$ ?

  2. If this is correct what extra structure is there in the $\mathbb{Z}$ partial groupoid respect to $\mathbb{N}$ partial groupoid if both sets are not closed under division ?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You might be able to get away with calling $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{Z}$ partial magmas under division, but they will not be partial groupoids since division is not associative. $\endgroup$ – Anonymous Nov 12 '19 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ But is division a N-Z partial magma if division is partially defined on them ? Why you say N partial magma under division when division is a partial magma for N and Z? Axiom of closure maybe make more sense if we are in a field Q where division is closed (except for zero number). I say this because for N and Z division is opened $\endgroup$ – Jack Nov 12 '19 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I think it's fair to call it a partial magma under division. "under" simply means "with respect to". $\mathbb{Z}$ is a group $\textit{under}$ addition, for example. $\endgroup$ – Anonymous Nov 12 '19 at 16:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Anonymous Note that "groupoid" is sometimes used synonymously with "magma" - see e.g. the OP's link (where "partial groupoid" is exactly what I'd call "partial magma"). I certainly prefer the term "magma" since there's no possible confusion, but the OP is matching existing terminology. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Nov 12 '19 at 17:41
  • $\begingroup$ @NoahSchweber I see. That's unfortunate. $\endgroup$ – Anonymous Nov 12 '19 at 19:46
0
$\begingroup$

EDIT: I misread the question, see the comments below.

This is a very incomplete answer, but too long for a comment. As an aside, I'm going to use "magma" exclusively, since "groupoid" has another meaning - namely, associative partial magma.

A partial magma is just a set equipped with a partial binary operation. This is an incredibly broad property, and in particular both $(\mathbb{Z}; \div)$ and $(\mathbb{N}; \div)$ are partial magmas.

But for that exact reason, "partial magmocity" is really silly, and we should (as you do) ask what more we can say.

On either $\mathbb{N}$ or $\mathbb{Z}$, the operation $\div$ is not associative, commutative, or total; the only obvious nice "simple-algebraic" properties it has are that it has an identity element and that it is "almost" left-cancellative (if $a\div b$ and $a\div c$ are each defined and are equal then $b=c$ unless $a=0$) and "really almost" right-cancellative (if $a\div c$ and $b\div c$ are each defined and are equal then $a=b$).

When we go a bit higher up the complexity ladder, we do see a bit more: $(\mathbb{N};\div)$ and $(\mathbb{Z};\div)$ are both "equivalent" in a precise logical sense to $(\mathbb{N};\times)$ and $(\mathbb{Z};\times)$ respectively (that is, division and multiplication in each setting are definable relative to each other). Considerations along these lines belong more to model theory than to algebra, though.

Ultimately though I don't know of a snappy name we can apply here; all these properties are annoyingly still pretty weak.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, you say that both $(\mathbb{Z}; \div)$ and $(\mathbb{N}; \div)$ are partial magmas but these both partial magmas should be different among them because we have different sets so I think that $\mathbb{N}$ partial magma is not equal to $\mathbb{Z}$ partial magma. Should there be a different structure between these 2 partial magmas $\endgroup$ – Jack Nov 12 '19 at 17:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Jack They are indeed different partial magmas - I don't think I implied they were the same? - and they do indeed have some distinctions (e.g. count the number of things $1$ can be divided by). But again I don't know any snappy names here, nor do I know of a property holding in one and failing in the other which can reasonably considered a "tameness" property (as opposed to merely a curiosity). $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Nov 12 '19 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ (Incidentally, a useful large-scale term here is "elementary equivalence." Two structures are elementarily equivalent if they satisfy the same first-order sentences. Elementary equivalence is a very strong condition, but at the same time not too strong - there are surprisingly simple examples of structures which are not isomorphic but are elementarily equivalent - for example, the linear orders $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}+\mathbb{Z}$.) $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Nov 12 '19 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Jack Oh I see, I misparsed the question - you're not asking what additional structure each has, but what additional structure $\mathbb{Z}$ has compared to $\mathbb{N}$. My apologies! Let me know if you'd like me to delete this. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Nov 12 '19 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ Your answer is good, no need to delete it. what I also ask is about partial magmas: "what Z-partial magma additional structure has compared to N-partial magma" ? $\endgroup$ – Jack Nov 12 '19 at 18:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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