Talk:Commutative magma

Valid? OR?

There's no references here. Is this OR?

Also, I'm not really qualified to criticize others' descriptions of abstract algebra, but I'm going to anyway. In:

$r\cdot p=p\cdot r=p$ "paper beats rock";

The first p is a move of the game. The final p is the outcome of the game. I can see why the notation would be handy, but to my eye, the notation leads the user astray when in $(r\cdot p)\cdot s=p\cdot s=s.$, you substitute an outcome where a move is needed.

It might be that this is illustrating a valid point, but I'm concerned its doing so with an invalid example. Someone up on abstract algebra want to fill me in? Cretog8 (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is OR. It is also true OR. The point about "moves" versus "outcomes" is not really an issue, since the example is not one of game theory, but of abstract algebra. All that is being done is that a binary operation is being defined on a three-element set, and some properties are being observed. The game "rock, paper, scissors" serves only to indicate the inspiration behind drawing up that particular multiplication table, which might otherwise seem "random". Sullivan.t.j (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way you could either re-write it to make it clear it's not about the game RPS, or use a different example? As it is, it's confusing (for instance it's turned up in the Rock paper scissors article). Cretog8 (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not about the game, but is strictly derived from its rules, and I’ve rewritten the article to reflect that. PJTraill (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Less convoluted example: the average of two numbers. --146.186.130.221 (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Added PJTraill (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

NAND or NOR on booleans --77.177.0.185 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to say RSP algebra is a great example! And the great thing is it was one of the first hits when I googled "commutative non-associative" 129.67.186.139 (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)