Talk:Operad

Example?

Can someone add an example, please? Thanks. Jakob.scholbach 04:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operads in astronomy and bioengineering

Could the anonymous user who enters this sentence provide some indication as to _where_ the claim can be substantiated? Michiexile (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Little somethings" operads

Can someone please draw little boxes operads, so that the examples in this section may be rewritten in a chronological order? Twri (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Somethings Operads Picture

Is the picture given correct? It seems the discs for 2 and 3 are mixed up. Any thoughts? --Jongray (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ascii art to line art conversion missed things at the Axiom of associativity section

If you compare the ascii version [1] and line art version [2] you can see that the expressions "θo(θ,1)" and "θo(1,θ)" are not converted to the line art images (last two images of the Axiom of associativity -section). Specifically the "o"-operator is missing from the line art images. Also I don't understand what the user is trying to tell with the "o"-operator in the ascii art version. --Pasixxxx (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious reference

I am doubtful about reference Zinbiel, Guillaume W. (2011). "Encyclopedia of types of algebras 2010". arXiv:math/1101.0267. {{cite arXiv}}: |class= ignored (help); Check |arxiv= value (help). Arxiv papers are not refereed and so we can only accept this if it by an acknowledged expert. So who is Guillaume W. Zinbiel? The answer appears to be that he is Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in reverse and transposed into French. Something seems wrong here. South Jutland County (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.worldscibooks.com/mathematics/8222.html where it was published, and http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0267 where it was submitted by Loday. Anne Bauval (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you saying that Zinbiel is a pseudonym of Loday? Also, publication of this in a peer reviewed source is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion. (Though I haven't formulated an opinion one way or the other.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the arXiv article was uploaded by Loday (who also seems to have come up with the name "Zinbiel"), this seems likely. To repeat what I just wrote at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics: this is not my area of mathematics, but MathSciNet has 19 publications in which the title or review include the word "Zinbiel", by a variety of authors in several languages, dating to 2002. It looks completely legitimate to me. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm satisfied. I hadn't noticed that the paper was submitted by Loday. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetric group action

The first line under equivariance must be a typo? t is in S_n while the on the right hand side of the equation it is acting on something in P(k_1+k_2+...+k_n). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.183.81 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its clearly wrong. I can't figure out what the correct notation for this would be, given the current article; there'd have to be an 'abuse of notation' to fix this. linas (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking what May wrote in his article, he uses some abuse of notation as well. He just mentions that t acts on P(k_1+...+k_n) by shuffling indices, i.e. P(k_t(1)+...+k_t(n)). It may be worth it to mention that explicitly in the article.HSNie 15:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HSNie (talk • contribs)

I agree that something is wrong. Since t is already acting both on theta and on the ordering of its inputs, perhaps the t on the right hand side should be removed entirely.

I made an attempt at describing how "t" acts on the right hand side, as well as linked to the abuse of notation page Telestew (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

etgg

— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.103.85.253 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement below to rename this article as requested. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy New Year! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 09:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operad theory → Operad – Fundamentally a simpler name is better; just as we have group and ring, it seems to make sense to have an article on the notion of “operad” instead of an article about the theory surrounding it. I understand that an operad is a sort of like a theory of an algebraic structure (e.g., it can be a set of operations); it captures various notions like associative algebra (in the usual sense) or Lie algebras and other “algebraic” objects such as loop space in topology (the loop space should be an “algebra” but in a tricky way: it is an algebra over/for a particular operad). So, it is the notion of an algebraic notion but the notion of “operad” is something that exists and is notable: has been introduced by May (following the predecessors) and has been studied ever since; so, to me, it derseves the article with that name. (I also don’t know why “operad theory” is preferable.) —- Taku (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. People talk about "operads" much more than they do "operad theory"; the current article title is not the standard name for this subject. Ozob (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.