Groups

THIS IS RUBBISH BUT I LEAVE IT AS A LEAD

Since we skipped this topic in maths 25 years ago when I was just 14 I have wondered what was in that chapter... today I read the chapter of a book at last to fill myself in. It is interesting how we know so much about something we don't know by the territory that lies around it... this fenced off area of maths has been there all these years with its boundary gradually becoming better and better trodden.

There is an interesting parallel between Groups, superficially, and the SRH: the SRH is stating that no system can produce a group. This is clearly nonsense since many systems are groups... the SRH point however is that the operations in a group are not really "in the group" since they can't apply to themselves. But by isomorphism maybe they can... and does this cause necessary problems? Point being that a mathematically group is only the mapping of a domain onto itself... the mapping process lies "outside" the domain... the whole SRH problem is that mapping always lie "outside" else there are problems that break the group and lead outside. But not just in maths in all systems of rules (where things are de rigueur to borrow from the social realm of thinking) no matter how losely defined...

Just for play I does follow that being de rigueur, which is expected by necessity in high society, is not itself de rigueur. My grand-father entirely shunned high society and brought my mother up in a very unaffected environment. This is the SRH on a much larger stage than just maths or language.

I will follow up here later http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics)