Talk:Abelian group

message: Substituted at 01:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abelian group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120827093315/http://www.maa.org:80/devlin/devlin_04_04.html to http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_04_04.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think it is more appropriate for the lead to begin, "In abstract algebra . . ." instead of "In mathematics . . ." Yes, abelian groups are encountered in almost all parts of mathematics, but the lead should indicate specifically to which area of mathematics the concept belongs.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The specific area to which the concept belongs, is indicated by the categorization. The fist words are there for indicating to the reader whether the article is the one for which he/she is serching. It is there for indicating that the article is not about a specific group of people. Giving a too restricted field can be confusing for some people: a student of physics learning crystallography or a computer scientist learning cryptography will certainly encounter the phrase "abelian group". If they want more information and read "In abstract algebra", they can think that the article is not for them, as "abstract" is not for them, and it is possible that they do not know well the subdivisions of mathematics. "In algebra" is also not convenient, as it may confuse someone who come here after reading that a space of differentiable functions is an abelian group under addition. So, per WP:LEAST, "In mathematics" is the best choice. D.Lazard (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstract algebra v. mathematics in the lead 

message: this is an important group. 
i first thought "this should be in the sidebar" but anticipated a reversion on the basis that it's a kind of abelian group.
so the next question was: is there a mention of the grothendieck group on the abelian group page? there is not.
i was hoping someone who is familiar with group theory could add a blurb here somewhere. 
my opinion is that a mention (subsection or something) on this page would make its sidebar absence justified.
thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to . No reason for adding a specific section, as the Grothendieck group is not useful for the study of abelian groups. D.Lazard (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  grothendieck group? 

message: Should we discuss Shelah's relatively recent proof that the family of countable Torsion-free Abelian Groups is Borel complete? Does that belong in this article, or is that too specific a topic? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source? D.Lazard (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have both a primary source(a journal article of the derivations) and several secondary sources including a Quanta Magazine article. I think the Quanta Magazine article explains the work in the clearest terms for encyclopedic purposes. Would the Quanta Magazine article be an acceptable source to cite? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience with Quanta is that they oversimplify to the point of unintelligibility. I don't think they can be used as a reliable source for technical material in mathematics. For the general significance of a result, with the technical parts sourced elsewhere, maybe. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shelah's Recent Work on Torsion-free Abelian Groups 

message: The Conjugacy class article states a fact about abelian groups, namely that each conjugacy class of an abelian group is a singleton. I think it would be useful to add a mention of this fact in this article under the 'Properties' section Maximilien Tirard (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abelian Groups and Conjugacy Classes